Pratt:
- It seems as though Pratt is arguing that the notion of a speech community is predicated on a false assumption of cultural homogeneity? Do you agree with this argument: And, if so, why is it problematic?
- Pratt mentions perspectives of power, how can these asymmetrical power relationships, like teacher-student for example, be made more equitable?
Pratt seems to reject the idea of the existance of language in "speech communities" which she describes as held together by a homogeneous competence or grammar, shared identically and equally among all the members. I agree with this. In thier works, Anzaldua and Tan have recalled the diversity of language within one single language, or "many englishes," as Tan names it. Further stating that communities are distinguished and imagined through the modes of writing and litercay, or "print capitalism," the idea of speech community- based on a false assumption of cultural homoegeneity- negates the fact that many cultures, for example, did not rely on the mode of writing. For cultures that developed the ‘scribe’ as part of their literature, as was the case of the aztecs, for example, knowledge was thought of as being coming from and being ebedded in the world, or the images which were translated to the scribe. Upon the “conquest,” the written word was recognized as the only form of literature.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the asmmetrical power relationships that exist between the teacher-student, she implies it is inequitable because it is in this model of "homogenous community" that is the classroom that the teacher assumes his or her lectures will be received equally by all students in the class. But as she suggests, a course can engage the students at some level (as in the example provided) if it enables the students to meet at the "contact zone." In the case of the Western-culture requirement, it meant providing a space where "no one was excluded," and one in which "no one was safe." Thus, by tapping into each of the student's own cultures and knowledges in the class, the curriculum enabled them to speak in a "shared udnerstanding" at the contact zone. Speaking from the personal then allows for a communication across lines of difference.
Pratt’s argument with speech community and its often false assumption of cultural homogeneity seems to be based on the idea of contact zones and the constant clash of cultures in different social spaces. I agree with her argument that one cannot assume homogeneity when discussing within the context of speech because new perspectives between cultures are constantly exchanged. Evidence of that, which even Pratt shows, is that different writings will be read very differently because of their inherent heterogeneous nature and people located in various parts of the contact zone will deploy their own system of “mean making.” So, if you make the assumption that speech community is based on cultural homogeneity, it is problematic because you forget the contact zone and miscomprehend the work or whatever context you are speaking in. There is a social hierarchy and sense of authority as well as the issue of race that cannot be ignored and which factor into cultural hegemony.
ReplyDeletePratt also mentions the perspectives of power and these can be made more equitable if everyone has a stake—for example everyone had a stake in what they read even if it varied in range. Agreeing with Nancy in this, it will allow everyone to cross their lines of differences and learn from each other instead of being one homogenous crowd trying to systematically take in information for the purpose of forming an ad hoc community. This is not possible and probably the best way to rectify this is immerse one’s own history into another’s.
Based on the reading, one of the main focuses of asymmetrical power in teacher-student relationships was how language was used to establish rules or norms that govern the classroom. The teacher defines the rules and can interpret the attitude and behavior of the kids according to how they fit in the already set rules and ideas that the teacher has of her relationship with the students. The point of view of the pupil is thus taken for granted, as it is assumed that all the students are on the same page as the teacher. Although this idea is true for many students, it does not take into account students who are from a different culture or know a different language. Keeping in mind that this is prevalent and often times unnoticed, one way that this asymmetrical power relationships can be more symmetrical is simply having room for disagreement and a place where opposition to rules can be discussed. As the example with Manuel and his teacher showed, the teacher did not even realize that his homework was in a way a humorous attempt to voice out what he was really thinking about these assignments. Having a place in the classroom where students feel safe and listened to when critique comes up with the rules can eliminate this asymmetrical power that manifests itself in student-teacher relationships.
ReplyDelete