Literacy and Cultural Authenticity

-The following entry is written as a response to the week's provocations/questions provided by K. Kenny-

(K. Kenny)

My first question that I would like to put to you is how do we know when a book is culturally authentic? Susan Guevara (2003) argues that an authentic work is one that feels "alive" and it is something that cultural authenticity is related to the way the reader interacts with the books. She states, "What is cultural authenticity? I believe if we look to what rings true for each of us as individuals; if we look to what we see ring true for our students and colleagues, this is a good guideline" (Guevara, p.59). It is that feeling of trueness for the reader that is important. Seeing an affirmation of ones lived experience is a way to judge cultural authenticity.

Check out this blog by someone serving on the Children’s Literature Assembly for the National Council of Teachers of English Committee for Notables Books in English Language Arts.

http://wowlit.org/blog/2009/09/21/culturally-authentic-fairy-tales/

What happens when you believe that a work is culturally authentic? If you are coming from an outside culture, and have no firsthand knowledge of a culture are you able to feel that "trueness?" What if that story contains stereotypes that you are unaware of?

Is "cultural authenticity" defined subjectively? I asked this question because while the idea of culture can be defined in a collective sense, the experiences within can be personal and be very subjective.  When Guevara (2003) states that authenticity of literature and arts lies in its ability to provoke the feeling of "aliveness", "emotional intuitive connection" and an "affirmation of...existence" (p. 57-58), I feel that these are or can be very subjectively defined.  When I read Rohinton Mistry's (1995) A Fine Balance, I can confidently say that I felt these features but I cannot confidently admit that from here I now know enough about the Indian culture.  If I had read more of his work or other stories of the same genre would it change this?  Will it equip me with more information about the culture to warrant that I can say that it is authentic enough?  

It is a challenge for me to claim a written or an art piece to be culturally authentic and I question the existence of review panels (one that is referenced in your provocation and by Alison from NV library).  As I've asked previously, does the question of cultural authenticity a safety/protective/or corrective measure which makes sure that cultural ideas/traditions/beliefs are expressed/portrayed in a politically correct way so not to "offend" those in the culture or others in general?  A line in your provocation also speaks to this questioning, "no matter how imaginative and how well written a story is, it should be rejected if it seriously violates the integrity of a culture”. I wonder if this is more directed to an "outsider" writing about a particular culture or of an "insider" who is expressing their own experience of their culture.  I see the merits of the statement presented but would it be fair to silence ones thoughts and experiences, especially if it is that of an "insider", because it challenges the culture's integrity?  Or is the focus or the analysis of cultural authenticity simply a way for observers or readers (insiders or outsiders of a culture) to critically think about what they are reading or seeing so that they don't become victims of the dangers of a "single story" (Adichie, 2009)?  Short and Fox (2003) seems to affirm this when they say that, “the discussions [of cultural authenticity] invite the field into new conversations and questions about cultural authenticity instead of continuing to repeat old conversations” (p. 22).  Is the idea then to create and encourage critical thinkers and readers so that they are open “to other points of view” and promote “democracy” and “social justice” (Short and Fox, 2003, p. 23)?

(K. Kenny)

http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html

Many of you have watched the video, The Danger of a Single Story but please take another look, and think in terms of cultural authenticity. She tells of the fact that a professor tells her that her novel is not 'authentically African' because the characters do not behave in a way that he is used to. He had a stereotyped view of Africa and her story did not fit that view. His was a single story.

At the library it was talked about when we see stereotyped images in books, such as a Mexican person wearing a poncho, and why was it not okay to have books with these images in it if that culture really does wear that cultural dress. I keep coming back to this idea of a single story. In our libraries we have so few books with Spanish, French, Italian, Mexican, Inuit, etc, etc people depicted. In the ones that we do see often the people are depicted a certain way. Thus we gain a single story of an entire culture.

Power is the ability not just to tell the story of another person, but to make it the definitive story of that person.

Thoughts?

In your first question/provocation, I ended my response by asking whether questioning “cultural authenticity” is something that will perhaps, diminish or prevent the “danger(s) of a single story” (Adichie, 2009) – I think it is more relevant to ask that question in this discussion.  Upon watching the clip and reviewing the readings, particularly Aronson’s (2003) A mess of stories, I think about some possible ideas he presents to answer my question:

if we take away the false certitudes of ethnic essentialism, if we are honest, rigorous, and thorough enough to look deeply at peoples myths and ways of life around the world, we will find….We have a mess of stories and then we write our own

….

we must be rigorous, attuned to the complexity of cultures, willing to recognize the limitations of our own points of view (p. 82)

Within the complexities are the stories that Adichie (2009) challenges us to tell and listen to:

people…are eager to tell…many stories.  Stories matter.  Many stories matter.  Stories have been used to dispossess and to malign.  But stories can also be used to empower, and to humanize.  Stories can break the dignity of a people.  But stories can also repair that broken dignity.

Does the question then change to not necessarily defining what is culturally authentic within one or each story but how (true) authenticity lies in the relationships/connections we have with the “many stories” or "mess of stories" (Aronson, 2003) that people of the world have as a whole?

Some other questions to consider:

~do we only question cultural authenticity in literacy (or even in art) or are we more provoked to respond and critically analyse cultural authenticity when it portrays an idea or image that might pigeonhole or stereotype a group of individual?

~is the attempt for literacy material to be culturally authentic the same as to be politically correct so that it avoids potentially “offending” someone or some groups?

~is the definition of culture authenticity a subjective one?

~who defines cultural authenticity - person/people from the particular culture portrayed in the literature?

~in order to prove the author or artist's claim for authenticity does s/he have to be subjected to questions on the validity of their cultural background?

References:

Adichie, C.  (2009, October).  The danger of a single story [Video file].  Retrived from http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html

Fox, D., & Short, K.  (Eds.).  (2003).  Stories matter: the complexity of cultural authenticity in children’s literature.  Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.


Mistry, R.  (1995).  A fine balance.  Toronto, ON: McLelland & Stewart Ltd.  

Literacy as Multimodal Meaning Making

(Written with M. Lawson)

Multimodality speaks to the varying ways of representing, communicating and interpreting messages transmitted between people’s interactions with one another, with symbols, with objects and other materials that provoke meaning (Kress, 2003).  Given that people come from diverse social and cultural backgrounds, this has a significant influence in how a person or groups of people represent and communicate how they make meaning of their world (Kress, 2003, Martello, 2007; Seigel, 2006).  Kress (2003) asserts that representation and communication of ideas are no longer limited to what is written and read or spoken and heard.  It is no longer limited to lingual practices that only address two of our senses, sight and hearing; rather, it can be expressed in multimodal ways that trigger other parts of our senses and enrich our overall interpretation of things and situations (Kress, 2003).  Literacy is a way to represent and communicate an array of meanings and ideas that people have but it can also be described as being multimodal in its own right.  Children naturally experience literacy in a multimodal way therefore, within the context of educating and working with children, multimodal literacy is important to acknowledge, analyse, and put into practice.


Kress (as cited in Martello, 2007) defines multimodal literacy as a variety of ways in which children explore and practice literacy.  The multimodal practice involved in literacy learning is also significantly influenced by children’s diverse social and cultural traditions and practices.  As a result, children’s literacy practices can range from being linguistic, visual, oral and auditory, gestural and physical (actions or touch, ex. braille), or a combination of some or all (Martello, 2007, Seigel, 2006).  In the classrooms/centres, educators can support children’s literacy development by learning about the child and their literacy experiences at home and even within the community.  As educators familiarize themselves with the children’s families and cultural backgrounds and practices, they can incorporate such practices in the classroom/centres in a more natural and ethical way.  However, children are still taught with the expectation of mastering literacy by imposing letter sounding and writing drills or rote memorizations, following what Seigel (2006) describes as a “narrow and regressive vision of literacy learning in school[s]” (p. 65), which sets children to fail academically and be labeled “at risk” or worse, “illiterate”.  These are the children who may not connect and are unable to thrive in these conventional literacy practices because of its limiting ways and because it ignores other possible ways that they do use to learn and engage with literacy.  Failure to recognize children’s multimodal literacy learning and ignoring literacy experiences at home is a disservice to children and their overall development.    


Educators can “have a positive impact on the emerging literacies of every child by achieving continuity between home and educational literacy practices” (Martello, 2007, p. 89).  Multimodal literacy practices has a potential to meet every child’s needs, especially as they approach and learn to read, write, and generally express themselves through varying modes and mediums.  If a child has difficulties expressing her/himself through spoken language, perhaps the visual or gestural mode will allow him to do so.  “Embracing and capitalizing on a wide range of home and community literacy practices extends the learning possibilities for all children” (Martello, 2007, p. 101).  The important task is to closely observe, be well informed of, and foster and support the child’s “literacy strengths” (Evans, 2001) so that s/he has a positive and meaningful experience with literacy learning.  It is equally important that educators critically reflect on their own history with literacy practices to be able to recognize the uniqueness of literacy learning and therefore, enhance the way they engage in literacy practices with children. 


Through our inquiry we reflected on our experiences in engaging with multimodal literacy and in supporting its varying ways with children.  We questioned how our own social and cultural backgrounds influenced how we approached and encountered literacy as young children and whether we were encouraged to freely experience literacy in all of the ways we wanted to.  We wondered how such experiences could have influenced how we approach literacy teaching and learning with the children we work with now.  Finally, we questioned how we would promote multimodal literacy practices and also asked ourselves whether we use it more naturally or as a response to children who are not responding to particular literacy activity.  Our experiences have been of both but we believe that this was a part of the process of being attuned to children’s multiple ways of learning and making meaning of their world.  We surmised that we ourselves represented, communicated and interpreted in such a myriad of ways that it is wrong to restrict oneself, and therefore to restrict others – children – to make meaning within limiting or simplified terms.

Some questions to consider:

~What is (or has been) your experience with multimodal literacy?

~How do or did your social (familial and community connections) and cultural backgrounds influence how you experience(d) multimodal literacy?

~How often do you actually engage in multimodal literacy?

~Do you use it naturally (2nd nature to vary the ways to introduce literacy experience to children) or do we use it as a response to children who are not as responsive to particular literacy activity?

~How would you try to overcome parents or other colleagues' resistance to multimodal literacy practices?

~some examples of multimodal literacy practices...

References:

Evans, K.  (2001).  Holding on to many threads: Emergent literacy in a classroom of Iu Mien children.  In E. Jones, K. Evans & K. S. Rencken (Eds.), The lively kindergarten: Emergent curriculum in action (pp. 59-74).  Washington, DC: NAEYC. 

Kress, G.  (2003).  Multimodality.  In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 182-202).  New York, NY: Routledge

Martello, J.  (2007).  Many roads through many modes: becoming literate in childhood.  In L. Makin, C. Jones Diaz, & C. McLachlan (Eds.), Literacies in childhood: Changing views, challenging practice (2^nd ed. pp. 89-103). Marrickville, NSW: Maclennan & Petty – Elsevier.

Seigel, M.  (2006).  Rereading the signs: Multimodal transformations in the field of literacy education.  Language Arts, 84(1), 65-77.

Oral Storytelling

I can relate really well with the oral aspect of literacy and only because everyone talked in my family and therefore they had stories to tell!  I have lots of memories of being told "family anecdotes, tall tales, and embellished legacies" (Cline & Necochea, 2003, p. 126) during long car rides, during camping trips, during meals with families, or sneakily eavesdropping as my mom and her sisters gossiped about other family members or simply reminisced about their own childhood!

Reflecting on these memories, I believe that stories and the act of storytelling allowed my family and I to spend time together (Sabnani, 2009).  My sisters and I always gathered around grandparents, aunts and uncles and older cousins who were willing to share stories of their past.  We were never discouraged to listen even when subject matters were serious or had negative outcomes and any questions we had were always answered - the stories were very much interactive too!  I especially liked hearing stories which were accompanied by crisp and faded black and white or sepia coloured pictures and most especially if the people within those pictures were still alive or are the storytellers behind the captures! Sabnani states that “pictures also stimulate imagination and the art of reading between the lines…They aid memory…encourage curiosity and creativity, particularize situations, provide temporal links, and extended text” (Sabnani, n.d.).  As great as the stories were told, having pictures to accompany them enriched and created more nuances to the stories itself.  It was also interesting to hear different versions of stories which I now see as allowing me to understand “the possibility of multiple perspectives” (Sabnani, n.d.) and perhaps, also taught me to think critically about stories and situations I was immersed into. 

I heard many stories but I never attributed the act of storytelling to my interest in reading or writing in later years.  I wonder if my parents (and other adults in my childhood) knew that what they were doing in telling us stories was actually setting a good foundation for our future in literacy?

In my experience, I don't remember being too affected by the discrepancies between my home literacy practice and school literacy practices.  However, I also believed that reading and writing was something just done in school.  At such a young age, I believed I conformed to this idea and when I had some challenges writing stories during “creative writing” periods I never thought that it was because perhaps, I excelled better in oral literacy practices, or other modes of literacy.  I didn't struggle with the conventional ways of literacy; however, I always felt that I was never good enough as a writer or I wasn't creative enough because I couldn't write the way my teachers taught and 'encouraged' me.  This leads me to think about how (cognitively, emotionally, spiritually) limiting conventional literacy practices can be for children who practice literacy beyond reading and writing.  Children are restricted in their ability to express their thoughts and ideas and they can be profoundly silenced when the literacy practice(s) that they connect with are not honoured in their classrooms.  As an Early Childhood Educator I find that I can easily experience literacy with children in varying ways - oral practices is almost always included.  Is it the same when children enter elementary school or is it harder to uphold the other ways of engaging in literacy (or children's varying home literacy practices) because of the curricular mandates of teaching children to read or write a specific way?

References:

Cline, Z. & Necochea, J.  (2003).  My mother never read to me.  Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(2), 122-126.

Sabnani, N.  (2009, July).  The Kaavad storytelling tradition of Rajasthan.  Design thoughts, p. 28.

Sabnani, N.  (n.d.).  Designing for children: with focus on 'play and learn'.  'Homing' in with stories.

Literacy as Social Practice

Globalization has magnified the world and we are able to see more and more societies with diverse groups of people with varying cultural beliefs, values, traditions and practices.  This diversity is also very close to home existing in the classrooms/centres with the children, families and colleague interacting and working together.  From here, we can see the different learning styles of each person and this provokes the necessity of understanding how different social contexts, to which each individual is embedded in, affect how s/he represents, communicates and interprets the world.  Literacy enables us to make our representations, communications and interpretations palpable.  As educators of and learners with children, if we cannot acknowledge that literacy practices are different for all children we are not only ignoring aspects of their mental and emotional strengths but we are also suppressing their overall development.  To successfully and ethically support children’s literacy learning, it is important to “understand what reading and writing goes on in the home” (Barton, 1989, p. 1) and to understand what values are placed in such practices which motivate or discourage children to participate. 

Barton (1989) speaks about the “literacy brokers” (p. 7) in children’s lives and these could range from the parents, older siblings to the grandparents, aunts and uncles all of which interact and engage in various literacy related practices – “reading and writing…listening, viewing and drawing, as well as critiquing” (Jones Diaz, 2007, p. 32).  These relationships are important to acknowledge because significant learning occurs in these interactions. “[R]eading and writing [are] not just an individual affair; often a literate activity consists of several people contributing to it” (Barton, 1989, p. 7).  The narrowed view that literacy exists in isolation or that it is a “skill” (Comber & Reid, 2007, p. 46) that can be taught and eventually mastered within just reading or writing places little value on the learning that does occur in children’s social contexts and therefore restricts the possibilities of different literacy experiences that children can use to make meaning and to express themselves.

With all this in mind, I question how we respond to immigrant parents/families who are resistant in sharing their literacy practices at home for fear of being judged as not “doing enough” or because their priority is to have their child master reading and writing in English?  How can we honour their wishes and also ensure that we are not imposing our emergent ways by wanting to know how literacy is practiced at home?

 

Reference:

Barton, D.  (1989).  Making sense of literacy in the home.

Jones Diaz, C.  (2007).  Literacy as social practice.  In L. Makin, C. Jones Diaz, & C. McLachlan (Eds.), Literacies in childhood: Changing views, challenging practice (2^nd ed. pp. 31-42).  Marrickville, NSW: Maclennan & Petty – Elsevier. 

Comber, B., & Reid, J.  (2007).  Understanding literacy pedagogy in and out of school.  In L. Makin, C. Jones Diaz, & C. McLachlan (Eds.), Literacies in childhood: Changing views, challenging practice (2^nd ed. pp. 43-69).  Marrickville, NSW: Maclennan & Petty – Elsevier.