{"title":"Critical literacies: Ever-evolving","authors":"Arlette Ingram Willis","doi":"10.1111/lit.12331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>My heartfelt thanks to the editors for inviting me to participate in this special issue. I am humbled by the invitation and doubly pleased to share my thoughts. I was given the freedom to respond via interview or written text; the latter suits me best. I have written in a tone hoping to convey the way an interview may have occurred as I consider the framing of the call and respond to a few queries posed for this conversation. I am a US-based scholar, thus while extending the conversation globally, my response is on evolving notions of critical theorising in the United States.</p><p>My body of research includes interrogating traditional accounts of the history of literacy, most notably as portrayed in the United States. I have done so, in part, by questioning colonialism, Eurocentrism, and Westernised definitions and views of literacy that fail to acknowledge literacy as a global construct. From a critical perspective, I understand that the perpetuation of siloed Eurocentric geopolitical views of literacy is not haphazard; they are intentionally crafted to valorize a quest for literacy dominance and power. I argue that to democratise histories of literacy, we must include literacy among non-European and non-English-dominant people, given that centuries of literacy existed among some groups of people before Europeans were aware of their existence. A retelling of the history of world literacies exceeds the available space of this response, but an example from the African Diaspora may help clarify this point.</p><p>Histories of literacy among Black people, written by Black scholars, acknowledge Black achievement, brilliance, culture, experiences, language, and literacy. To be clear, millions of African people were captured, transported, and enslaved throughout the Americas, leading Diouf (<span>1998</span>, <span>2011</span>) to estimate that around 10% of enslaved African people transported to the Americas were literate. The impact of this statement is hard to grasp. The idea of literate enslaved African people supports a counternarrative to traditional histories of literacy as emanating from Greece and Italy. Acknowledging that tens of thousands of literate African people existed before most Europeans acquired literacy will be contested in the face of undeniable historical facts. Moreover, there is likely to be an outcry to whitewash the centuries-old mischaracterization of people of African descent as biologically, genetically, and intellectually incapable of learning to read. The pathologising of people of African descent has been most pronounced in Europe and the Americas, although the impact has been global.</p><p>The autobiography of Omar Ibn Said is the only known autobiography to have been written by a person while enslaved (Alryyes and Said, <span>2011</span>). His autobiography is among hundreds of autobiographies written by formerly enslaved people of African descent in the United States. Equally important are the autobiographies written by formerly enslaved people of African descent globally, for example, Brazil, Canada, England, Haiti, among others (see also Khan, <span>2020</span>). Collectively, these texts are representative first-hand accounts of Black life under enslavement that must be acknowledged, celebrated, and reclaimed within an inclusive history of literacy. In my literacy analysis of Omar Ibn Said's autobiography, I uncovered revelatory information about the role of literacy beyond the West, not beholden to American exceptionalism, Eurocentrism, or White supremacy. In his autobiography, Omar Ibn Said, boldly claims his humanity in the face of White supremacy. His epistemological and ideological positions are not rooted in Europe or America—they are African and Islamic—and imperative for his survival.</p><p>The new approach to understanding literacy, a transcendent approach (Willis, <span>forthcoming</span>), democratises and reconceptualises the definition of literacy: respecting the humanity of each person as a fellow human, providing access to literacy as a human right, understanding literacy as a global construct, and producing authenticated knowledge. Authenticated knowledge does not begin with the coloniser nor with the knowledge of the coloniser's ways of knowing. Authenticated knowledge begins with critical consciousness that examines and values the world's cultural, ethnic, gendered, linguistic, racial, and religious knowledge as explained by those closest to it. We all can learn from a broad and inclusive history of literacy among all cultural, ethnic, gendered, linguistic, racial, and religious groups. This knowledge should inform critical literacy researchers as they work among and within varying populations. We should ask ourselves, as Brayboy et al., <span>2012</span>, suggests: ‘What kinds of connections can you envision among epistemologies (ways of knowing), ontologies (ways of being), axiologies (value systems), and the research process?’ (p. 427). We also can learn to decentre Whiteness and discard the colonialist stance toward the literacies of non-Eurocentric and non-English dominant people. It will take work as we learn to value and centre Africana, Arab, and Muslim, Asian, Latinx, Native American, and Indigenous epistemologies. And we must learn to move beyond the White gaze and produce critical and socially just literacy. Is this possible? Is it realistic in modern society?</p><p>It is absolutely possible, as described in and across multiple chapters in an outstanding compendium of critical literacy theorising by Pandya et al.'s (<span>2022</span>) <i>The Handbook of critical literacies</i>. The transnational group of editors, founders of the Transnational Critical Literacy Network present a compilation (50 chapters) of critical literacy and social justice scholarship. They enhance our understanding of critical theorising, as they acknowledge their ‘deliberate attempt to broaden and diversify the scholars who might find intellectual homes under a revitalized critical literacy umbrella’ (p. x). Building and expanding the history, traditions, and theories within critical literacies along with acknowledging current knowledge and theoretical approaches; they offer a definition of <i>critical literacies</i> as ‘literate practices individuals need in order to survive and thrive in the world, foregrounding the concept that information and texts are never neutral; they afford the ability to produce powerful texts that address injustices and our lived worlds’ (p. 3). Importantly, they highlight, ‘we intentionally draw on multiple critical epistemologies, including those of European, Black, and Indigenous thinkers from the Global South and the Global North’ (p. 3). In so doing, they enlarge the scope of critical theorising and reflexively note the shifting meaning of critical literacy as traditionally dominated by scholars from the Global North, ‘especially by white, Anglophone discourses’ (Mora et al., <span>2022</span>, p. 466). The traditional framework ‘sometimes obscures attentions that scholars and non-Anglophone regions face when they move across the different languages they use to talk about literacy’ (p. 466). The editors and authors represent multiple geo-political spaces as they engage and re-imagine critical literacy and literacy approaches, assessments, curriculum, instruction, methods, praxis, and theories as inclusive of cultures, ethnicities, genders, languages, and races.</p><p><b>EQ:</b> Historically, you come from a long line of scholars and a tradition of literacy that has seen various waves of evolution informing what we believe critical literacy is today. Tell us, what major shifts have you experienced since the inception of your time in the field and what led you to choose critical literacy as a vehicle for changing classrooms and schools?</p><p><b>AIW:</b> I begin with snippets of my own journey, followed by brief comments from Luke's (<span>2018</span>) critical literacy scholarship and commentary informed by Crenshaw's (<span>1991</span>, <span>2021</span>) critical race theory scholarship.</p><p>As a Black woman in the academy, my journey always has been both personal and political. I was prone to consider the role of oppression and power in shaping the outcomes of Black people's lives growing up in the United States during the 1970s. I read Black scholarship before entering the professoriate and quickly learned it was an undervalued resource among some White academics. The onset of my theoretical journey in the academy is rooted in Critical Theory (CT), as I read widely about its foundations, locating a theoretical space that seemed both familiar and distinct. Although CT focused more exclusively on social economic class in relation to power in Europe, I was not unfamiliar with such conversations in the United States centred on social class, power, and race. As broader notions of critical theorising emerged, I was eager to examine their affordances in literacy.</p><p>I expanded my reading to include critical theorists in the United States and beyond who were engaging in critical literacy research, including the late Brazilian scholar, Paulo Freire. I found an early ideological space in CT that was missing in traditional histories of literacy. Later, I became a devotee, or Freirediana, reading everything written by him and his contemporaries. My ideas, however, began to shift after I attended a Pedagogy of the Theatre conference in Omaha, NE, in the late 1990s. Paulo Freire was in attendance and responded to questions from the audience. He appeared noticeably uncomfortable when queried about why issues of race/racism, and gender seldom appeared in his work. Through translators, he apologised for his oversight of women but did not engage in a discussion of race. At the time, I knew little about the complicated and vexing history of race and racism in Brazil.</p><p>They also expressed an uneasiness about the roots of CT as reflected in theorising by Europeans, scholarship centred on Whiteness, and a lack of inclusion of globally and nationally racialized and oppressed people.</p><p>After reading bell Hooks's (<span>1994</span>) <i>Teaching to Transgress</i>, in which she shares her interview with Freire and his description of himself as White, I was surprised and left wondering, had I misread his critical literacy concerns? Who was he identifying, or not identifying, as the oppressed in Brazil? Next, I read his edited text, <i>Mentoring the Mentor: A Critical Dialogue with Paulo Freire</i>, in which Gloria Ladson Billings (<span>1997</span>) discusses race as a missing feature of critical pedagogy. My need to understand Freire (<span>2002</span>), description of critical literacy drew me to search deeper, re-reading his <i>Education for Critical Consciousness (1973)</i>, wherein he acknowledges slavery in Brazil (again, not identifying race), and his <i>Pedagogy of the Oppressed</i> (<span>1970</span>), wherein his reference to the oppressed is conveyed in the term, peasants. Who were considered Brazilian peasants in the mid-1900s? Had I assumed he would acknowledge that the oppressed of Brazil were poor people who were also Black, Brown, and Indigenous people? Clearly, he does not specifically identify people by race (photos of the period and progeny illuminate racial differences). His focus is on people who were poor, people who were on the margins of Brazilian society, yet without cultural, ethnic, gender, linguistic, or racial identifiers. I even enrolled in Portuguese language classes to better grasp the language; was something lost in translation?</p><p>I wondered whether, as a Black American, had I romanticised his scholarship and failed to see its shortcomings about race/racism in Brazil, and during a Fulbright in Brazil in 2014, I explored Paulo Freire's life, scholarship, and legacy. I read his writings, attended courses, seminars, monthly Freirediana meetings, and a statewide Paulo Freire conference. I also interviewed devotees of Freire's scholarship, people who were carrying on his work in Rio Grande do Sul. Across these experiences, Freire was regarded in reverent tones, hailed as a people's hero, honoured for his work in literacy, remembered with immense gratitude, and worshipped by some. During one of my interviews, Imaculada was moved into a trance-like space, she shook, and her eyes filled with tears that gently rolled down her face, as she recalled his influence on her life (Willis, <span>2017</span>, p. 47). S. She holds a doctorate and has served as the Coordinator of Popular Education in RS and taught at the university level using Freire's theoretical and pedagogical models. Her activism far exceeds teaching graduate courses and writing academic papers, and she each semester she continues to negotiate with the state government to offer free adult literacy courses in some of the poorest Black neighbourhoods in her community.</p><p>I agreed, but remained bothered by his initial weak attribution of Fanon, <span>2008</span> concept of critical consciousness that addresses colonialism, oppression, and race. In my world, addressing race and racism were integral to critical literacy. While in Brazil, I began to understand his scholarship, how Freire's lack of attention to race and racism as embedded in Brazil's geopolitical contexts, and his approach to race and racism, both historically and contemporaneously. Freire's ever-evolving definition of <i>conscientização</i> (Willis et al., <span>2008</span>) was concerning, as a fundamental feature of critical literacy appeared to minimise and leave race and racism unaccounted for.</p><p>Although Fanon and Freire were correct in understanding the importance of critical consciousness as the bedrock of critical literacy, their approaches differed; addressing race and racism were integral to critical literacy. I also began to wonder about—what appeared to be—missing critical conscious scholarship as a global phenomenon. It seemed that critical understandings about how the world in which you live functions economically, intellectually, morally, politically, and socially were not confined to Western Europe, men, economic status, or social standing. Surely, beyond the Frankfurt School and the evolution of critical theory (CT), there were people who voiced views of their worlds in ways that were not embedded in Americanism/Eurocentrism/Whiteness, yet were unacknowledged as reflective of critical thought. Where was this missing scholarship in criticality, critical literacy, and critical pedagogy? To be clear, where was the scholarship of Black people who wrote counter-narratives about who we are as a people brought from other shores?</p><p>I returned to Black scholarship written in response to the political and social circumstances framing their lives, that technically was not categorised or recognised as part of critical thought; I realised how their scholarship challenged the status quo and the failure of democracy to address inequality. This rich body of scholarship, beginning in the 1800s with David Walker, Frederick Douglass, W.E. B. DuBois, Anna Julia (Haywood) Cooper; continuing into the 1900s with James Baldwin, Frantz Fanon, bell hooks, C. L. R. James, and Cornel West; and, continuing into the 2000s with Eddie Glaude, Fred Moten, and Robyn Kelly, among others, remains an untapped resource among critical theorists. Collectively, the scholarship rested on ‘interrogating knowledge production itself’ (Kelley quoted in Taylor, <span>2023</span>, para. 23). Black scholarship has helped to sharpen my focus on culture, ethnicity, identity, race, and racism within critical literacy.</p><p>I am especially connected to the familiarity, knowingness, and thinking of Black women scholars as part of a community of ‘radical thinkers who tirelessly imagined other ways to live and never failed to consider how the world might be otherwise’ (Hartman, <span>2019</span>, p. xv). Their work provides a communal space born out of shared experiences and conversations. A space where you do not want the conversation to end, where you are cared for, loved, and nurtured with insight and wisdom. The life and scholarship of Anna Julia (Haywood) Cooper, the Mother of Black Feminism, have been immensely helpful in framing my understanding of critical literacy and social justice. Cooper's (<span>1892</span> book <i>A Voice from the South by a Black Woman of the South</i> includes speeches and writings in which she exhibits cultural, economic, gendered, and racial discernment as necessary survival skills to be developed by Black women living in the United States (see also Lemert & Bhan, <span>1998</span>). Cooper argues it is important to look ‘behind the veil’ to understand systems of power, acknowledging how hierarchies are established by White men and women, and some Black men. Her observations were conveyed in rich descriptive language and read among Black scholars but seemingly invisible to others. Cooper's writing about the experiences of Black women, anti-Black racism, economic classism, and gender bias informed Collins's (<span>1990</span>) notion of interlocking structures and Crenshaw's (<span>1991</span>) concept of intersectionality (identifying the multiple oppressions experienced by Black women). Crenshaw's discussion of the multiple oppressions facing Black women and how they are ignored in the judicial system as well as society continues to speak to me. Crenshaw (<span>2021</span>) has been an outspoken critic of the failure of the republic to live up to its values, writing ‘whiteness—not a simplistic racial categorization, but a deeply structured relationship to social coercion and group entitlement—remains a vibrant dimension of power in America’ (para. 5). In the United States and globally, people adopt a critical literacy perspective as they engage text to transform dis/misinformation about ideologies past, present, and future.</p><p><b>EQ:</b> More recently, we continue to wrestle with increasing scholarship on racialization as an outcome of critical literacy while battling backlash at the same time in the form of a ban on Critical Race Theory, books, and science in what many view as a post-truth era. How can scholars and educators engage—nationally and internationally—with racialization as a function of critical literacy to collaboratively acknowledge and address diversity and difference while also producing change?</p><p>Concepts that underpin Black Lives Matter, CRT, and Woke, for instance, emerged out of Black experiences and suffering to economically express a deep and historical understanding of anti-Black racism and oppression in the United States. Black Lives Matter was coined in 2013, by Garza, Cullors, and Tometi <span>n.d</span>.) following the death of Trayvon Martin and the acquittal of George Zimmerman. Baptise (<span>2021</span>) submits that the co-option of Black language is an old racist tactic whose goal is to ‘take a radical message and muddle it enough until it means its opposite’ (para. 2). She tracks how Black language has been appropriated as a way of ‘reminding Black people of their place in society’ (para 8). Critical Race Theory emerged out of the scholarship of Derrick Bell (<span>1980</span>, <span>1995</span>), and Bunyasi and Smith (<span>2019</span>) began using an old Black term (originally used in 1923) to express the importance of being ever-vigilant after the unjust murders of Black people in the United States. As the world reacted to the murder of George Floyd to contest the devaluing of Black lives and to demand equality, there was swift White backlash.</p><p>Sadly, vulgarised versions of each concept have become political flashpoints and weaponized euphemisms for anti-Black racism, from local school board meetings to political campaign ads as ‘They're flipped on their head, turned inside out, repurposed to sneer at the people they were meant to rally, and generally made to seem comical and ridiculous—a rhetorical minstrel act’ (Baptise, <span>2021</span>, para 3). Politicised actions, events, and statements reflect White hegemonic discourses that also permeate educational and political discussions about education crises and reform and are re-messaged as solutions while obfuscating educational inequity. We witnessed systems of oppression by the media and politicians, who intentionally or ignorantly co-opted, misappropriated, and profited from Black language when marketed to foment hate and racial division.</p><p>Opponents have countered his argument is ‘an attempt to obscure the issue’ (Crenshaw, quoted in Jackson, <span>2021</span>, para. 3). They quickly point out that ‘the chronic failure to confront the monsters of our past is not destiny; it's a daily choice to accept American myth in the face of so much countervailing evidence’ (Crenshaw, <span>2021</span>, para. 12). From a critical literacy perspective, Rufo's attempt to appear ecumenical belies his aggressive push to instantiate White supremacy as the foundation of US education, history, and nation building. Most educators are aware that critical race theory is a legal concept not taught in P-12 and rarely taught in graduate and undergraduate courses (the concept has been applied to education by Ladson-Billings and Tate, <span>1995</span>, as a lens to better understand the role of systemic racism in the field). The zest to adopt anti-CRT laws is part of the backlash following the global support of racial justice and the fear of accurately revealing the history of racism throughout US history.</p><p>The word ‘woke’ has been sufficiently fleshed out in Bunyasi and Smith (<span>2019</span>). There has been a deliberate misappropriation of the word woke, for economic and political gain. Beyond the politically inflammatory rhetoric of Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, and his attempt to use the term as an acronym in his Stop W.O.K.E. legislation (the Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act), it has become a coded reference to anti-Blackness. Among the most sensational blunders has been the publicly broadcast interview with Bethany Mandel. In the interview with the author, someone who has loudly decried the concept of ‘woke’, a journalist asks her to define what she means by the term. Mandel, who claims to have co-authored an entire chapter about the concept in a recent book, is caught off-guard and struggles to articulate a coherent response. In fact, throughout the brief but painful incident, she voices greater concern about how she will appear on social media than about her incoherent response. Indeed, she received millions of scathing responses to her lack of knowledge and inability to define the term. Unsurprisingly, as the uproar waned, she was privileged to write a response in a popular online periodical, explaining her anxiety and tears (Mandel, <span>2023</span>). From a critical literacy perspective, the White main/right-wing media discourse feeds into and exacerbates the importance of considering the feelings of White women (the damsel in distress when confronted by the Black female reporter). Throughout Mandel's privileged publication, she does not provide a definition of ‘woke’ and fails to mention that she is profiting from misinformation. No one knows or appears to value the untold damage in the lives of Black and Brown children that her discourse is likely to cause. And, to date, the periodical has not privileged someone with knowledge of the origins of the term woke, to define it for the public.</p><p>As scholars who embrace, promote, teach, and conduct critical literacy research, we must not remain silent about racial and social injustice, and we must exercise a commitment to eradicating racism in theory and praxis.</p><p><b>EQ:</b> As you look toward a future for literacy, where and how do you see critical literacy forging a path for ALL students to thrive together in solidarity?</p><p><b>AIW:</b> Foremost among the new pathways that I envisage for critical literacy is building on the intersection of race and linguistic ideologies explored in brilliant discussions of raciolinguistics (Flores & Rosa, <span>2015</span>; Rosa & Flores, <span>2017</span>) and Smith's (<span>2022</span>) concept of transraciolinguistics in a global metaverse. These frameworks, among others, make clear linkages among, colonialism, imperialism, linguicide, and White supremacy in the United States and globally, historically and contemporaneously. They point to European imperialism and colonialism as a global issue, not just one in the United States, ever evolving to retain power. It also is critical to recognise what Rosa and Flores (<span>2015</span>) refer to as the ‘co-production’ and ‘co-naturalisation’ of race and language that work to instantiate systems of dominance and oppression.</p><p>Menashy and Zakharia (<span>2022</span>) expand on the need for global understandings about race and racism in their research on White ignorance, informed by Charles Stuart Mills's (<span>1997</span>, <span>2007</span>, <span>2015</span>) concept of White ignorance. Specifically, they highlight that <i>white ignorance</i> is ‘White misunderstanding, misrepresentation, evasion, and self-deception on matters related to race’ (Mills, <span>1997</span>, pp. 18–19, quoted in Menashy & Zakharia). The authors' scholarship includes interrogating global education policy because it is often impacted by and modelled after the geopolitical Global North in general and the United States specifically. They note that ‘within global education bodies, racism has been largely considered a US problem, thereby denying White supremacy as a global system. This sanitizing and silencing of racism—or White ignorance—has inhibited structural change in global education policies and practices’ (p. 39). They also acknowledge that race as a social construct is not understood the same way globally; however, everywhere it lingers from histories and contemporary manifestations of global colonialism and imperialism. Menashy and Zakharia submit that ‘racial hierarchy within international development is perpetuated through narratives that have been reframed and sanitized without ascribing the term race to categories that derive from racialized colonial groupings’ (p. 465). Their findings from interviews and document analyses suggest that white global ignorance is willful, as government educational agencies avoid discussions of race, racism, and White supremacy. Many countries evade, ignore, or minimise their own histories and contemporary manifestations of racism. The authors conclude: ‘without addressing global White ignorance, education scholars fail to interrogate a core element to structural global inequities, and policy and advocacy leaders serve to reinscribe power hierarchies at play within the colonial education development industry. (p. 478).</p><p>Collectively, researchers, including critical literacy researchers (Mora personal communication, April 2023), are challenging the world to address race and racism globally. Pérez Huber et al. (<span>2023</span>) refer to the avoidance of race as <i>aracialism</i> where ‘analysis … lacks and/or dismisses the consideration of race and racism’ (footnote 2, p. 14). Ironically, it is the very research needed. While it is equally important to continue engagement in critical projects that examine the use of language in text and technology, it is imperative to pursue change in the language, enactment, and enforcement of educational policies to effect racial and social justice.</p>","PeriodicalId":46082,"journal":{"name":"Literacy","volume":"57 2","pages":"198-205"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lit.12331","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Literacy","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lit.12331","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
My heartfelt thanks to the editors for inviting me to participate in this special issue. I am humbled by the invitation and doubly pleased to share my thoughts. I was given the freedom to respond via interview or written text; the latter suits me best. I have written in a tone hoping to convey the way an interview may have occurred as I consider the framing of the call and respond to a few queries posed for this conversation. I am a US-based scholar, thus while extending the conversation globally, my response is on evolving notions of critical theorising in the United States.
My body of research includes interrogating traditional accounts of the history of literacy, most notably as portrayed in the United States. I have done so, in part, by questioning colonialism, Eurocentrism, and Westernised definitions and views of literacy that fail to acknowledge literacy as a global construct. From a critical perspective, I understand that the perpetuation of siloed Eurocentric geopolitical views of literacy is not haphazard; they are intentionally crafted to valorize a quest for literacy dominance and power. I argue that to democratise histories of literacy, we must include literacy among non-European and non-English-dominant people, given that centuries of literacy existed among some groups of people before Europeans were aware of their existence. A retelling of the history of world literacies exceeds the available space of this response, but an example from the African Diaspora may help clarify this point.
Histories of literacy among Black people, written by Black scholars, acknowledge Black achievement, brilliance, culture, experiences, language, and literacy. To be clear, millions of African people were captured, transported, and enslaved throughout the Americas, leading Diouf (1998, 2011) to estimate that around 10% of enslaved African people transported to the Americas were literate. The impact of this statement is hard to grasp. The idea of literate enslaved African people supports a counternarrative to traditional histories of literacy as emanating from Greece and Italy. Acknowledging that tens of thousands of literate African people existed before most Europeans acquired literacy will be contested in the face of undeniable historical facts. Moreover, there is likely to be an outcry to whitewash the centuries-old mischaracterization of people of African descent as biologically, genetically, and intellectually incapable of learning to read. The pathologising of people of African descent has been most pronounced in Europe and the Americas, although the impact has been global.
The autobiography of Omar Ibn Said is the only known autobiography to have been written by a person while enslaved (Alryyes and Said, 2011). His autobiography is among hundreds of autobiographies written by formerly enslaved people of African descent in the United States. Equally important are the autobiographies written by formerly enslaved people of African descent globally, for example, Brazil, Canada, England, Haiti, among others (see also Khan, 2020). Collectively, these texts are representative first-hand accounts of Black life under enslavement that must be acknowledged, celebrated, and reclaimed within an inclusive history of literacy. In my literacy analysis of Omar Ibn Said's autobiography, I uncovered revelatory information about the role of literacy beyond the West, not beholden to American exceptionalism, Eurocentrism, or White supremacy. In his autobiography, Omar Ibn Said, boldly claims his humanity in the face of White supremacy. His epistemological and ideological positions are not rooted in Europe or America—they are African and Islamic—and imperative for his survival.
The new approach to understanding literacy, a transcendent approach (Willis, forthcoming), democratises and reconceptualises the definition of literacy: respecting the humanity of each person as a fellow human, providing access to literacy as a human right, understanding literacy as a global construct, and producing authenticated knowledge. Authenticated knowledge does not begin with the coloniser nor with the knowledge of the coloniser's ways of knowing. Authenticated knowledge begins with critical consciousness that examines and values the world's cultural, ethnic, gendered, linguistic, racial, and religious knowledge as explained by those closest to it. We all can learn from a broad and inclusive history of literacy among all cultural, ethnic, gendered, linguistic, racial, and religious groups. This knowledge should inform critical literacy researchers as they work among and within varying populations. We should ask ourselves, as Brayboy et al., 2012, suggests: ‘What kinds of connections can you envision among epistemologies (ways of knowing), ontologies (ways of being), axiologies (value systems), and the research process?’ (p. 427). We also can learn to decentre Whiteness and discard the colonialist stance toward the literacies of non-Eurocentric and non-English dominant people. It will take work as we learn to value and centre Africana, Arab, and Muslim, Asian, Latinx, Native American, and Indigenous epistemologies. And we must learn to move beyond the White gaze and produce critical and socially just literacy. Is this possible? Is it realistic in modern society?
It is absolutely possible, as described in and across multiple chapters in an outstanding compendium of critical literacy theorising by Pandya et al.'s (2022) The Handbook of critical literacies. The transnational group of editors, founders of the Transnational Critical Literacy Network present a compilation (50 chapters) of critical literacy and social justice scholarship. They enhance our understanding of critical theorising, as they acknowledge their ‘deliberate attempt to broaden and diversify the scholars who might find intellectual homes under a revitalized critical literacy umbrella’ (p. x). Building and expanding the history, traditions, and theories within critical literacies along with acknowledging current knowledge and theoretical approaches; they offer a definition of critical literacies as ‘literate practices individuals need in order to survive and thrive in the world, foregrounding the concept that information and texts are never neutral; they afford the ability to produce powerful texts that address injustices and our lived worlds’ (p. 3). Importantly, they highlight, ‘we intentionally draw on multiple critical epistemologies, including those of European, Black, and Indigenous thinkers from the Global South and the Global North’ (p. 3). In so doing, they enlarge the scope of critical theorising and reflexively note the shifting meaning of critical literacy as traditionally dominated by scholars from the Global North, ‘especially by white, Anglophone discourses’ (Mora et al., 2022, p. 466). The traditional framework ‘sometimes obscures attentions that scholars and non-Anglophone regions face when they move across the different languages they use to talk about literacy’ (p. 466). The editors and authors represent multiple geo-political spaces as they engage and re-imagine critical literacy and literacy approaches, assessments, curriculum, instruction, methods, praxis, and theories as inclusive of cultures, ethnicities, genders, languages, and races.
EQ: Historically, you come from a long line of scholars and a tradition of literacy that has seen various waves of evolution informing what we believe critical literacy is today. Tell us, what major shifts have you experienced since the inception of your time in the field and what led you to choose critical literacy as a vehicle for changing classrooms and schools?
AIW: I begin with snippets of my own journey, followed by brief comments from Luke's (2018) critical literacy scholarship and commentary informed by Crenshaw's (1991, 2021) critical race theory scholarship.
As a Black woman in the academy, my journey always has been both personal and political. I was prone to consider the role of oppression and power in shaping the outcomes of Black people's lives growing up in the United States during the 1970s. I read Black scholarship before entering the professoriate and quickly learned it was an undervalued resource among some White academics. The onset of my theoretical journey in the academy is rooted in Critical Theory (CT), as I read widely about its foundations, locating a theoretical space that seemed both familiar and distinct. Although CT focused more exclusively on social economic class in relation to power in Europe, I was not unfamiliar with such conversations in the United States centred on social class, power, and race. As broader notions of critical theorising emerged, I was eager to examine their affordances in literacy.
I expanded my reading to include critical theorists in the United States and beyond who were engaging in critical literacy research, including the late Brazilian scholar, Paulo Freire. I found an early ideological space in CT that was missing in traditional histories of literacy. Later, I became a devotee, or Freirediana, reading everything written by him and his contemporaries. My ideas, however, began to shift after I attended a Pedagogy of the Theatre conference in Omaha, NE, in the late 1990s. Paulo Freire was in attendance and responded to questions from the audience. He appeared noticeably uncomfortable when queried about why issues of race/racism, and gender seldom appeared in his work. Through translators, he apologised for his oversight of women but did not engage in a discussion of race. At the time, I knew little about the complicated and vexing history of race and racism in Brazil.
They also expressed an uneasiness about the roots of CT as reflected in theorising by Europeans, scholarship centred on Whiteness, and a lack of inclusion of globally and nationally racialized and oppressed people.
After reading bell Hooks's (1994) Teaching to Transgress, in which she shares her interview with Freire and his description of himself as White, I was surprised and left wondering, had I misread his critical literacy concerns? Who was he identifying, or not identifying, as the oppressed in Brazil? Next, I read his edited text, Mentoring the Mentor: A Critical Dialogue with Paulo Freire, in which Gloria Ladson Billings (1997) discusses race as a missing feature of critical pedagogy. My need to understand Freire (2002), description of critical literacy drew me to search deeper, re-reading his Education for Critical Consciousness (1973), wherein he acknowledges slavery in Brazil (again, not identifying race), and his Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), wherein his reference to the oppressed is conveyed in the term, peasants. Who were considered Brazilian peasants in the mid-1900s? Had I assumed he would acknowledge that the oppressed of Brazil were poor people who were also Black, Brown, and Indigenous people? Clearly, he does not specifically identify people by race (photos of the period and progeny illuminate racial differences). His focus is on people who were poor, people who were on the margins of Brazilian society, yet without cultural, ethnic, gender, linguistic, or racial identifiers. I even enrolled in Portuguese language classes to better grasp the language; was something lost in translation?
I wondered whether, as a Black American, had I romanticised his scholarship and failed to see its shortcomings about race/racism in Brazil, and during a Fulbright in Brazil in 2014, I explored Paulo Freire's life, scholarship, and legacy. I read his writings, attended courses, seminars, monthly Freirediana meetings, and a statewide Paulo Freire conference. I also interviewed devotees of Freire's scholarship, people who were carrying on his work in Rio Grande do Sul. Across these experiences, Freire was regarded in reverent tones, hailed as a people's hero, honoured for his work in literacy, remembered with immense gratitude, and worshipped by some. During one of my interviews, Imaculada was moved into a trance-like space, she shook, and her eyes filled with tears that gently rolled down her face, as she recalled his influence on her life (Willis, 2017, p. 47). S. She holds a doctorate and has served as the Coordinator of Popular Education in RS and taught at the university level using Freire's theoretical and pedagogical models. Her activism far exceeds teaching graduate courses and writing academic papers, and she each semester she continues to negotiate with the state government to offer free adult literacy courses in some of the poorest Black neighbourhoods in her community.
I agreed, but remained bothered by his initial weak attribution of Fanon, 2008 concept of critical consciousness that addresses colonialism, oppression, and race. In my world, addressing race and racism were integral to critical literacy. While in Brazil, I began to understand his scholarship, how Freire's lack of attention to race and racism as embedded in Brazil's geopolitical contexts, and his approach to race and racism, both historically and contemporaneously. Freire's ever-evolving definition of conscientização (Willis et al., 2008) was concerning, as a fundamental feature of critical literacy appeared to minimise and leave race and racism unaccounted for.
Although Fanon and Freire were correct in understanding the importance of critical consciousness as the bedrock of critical literacy, their approaches differed; addressing race and racism were integral to critical literacy. I also began to wonder about—what appeared to be—missing critical conscious scholarship as a global phenomenon. It seemed that critical understandings about how the world in which you live functions economically, intellectually, morally, politically, and socially were not confined to Western Europe, men, economic status, or social standing. Surely, beyond the Frankfurt School and the evolution of critical theory (CT), there were people who voiced views of their worlds in ways that were not embedded in Americanism/Eurocentrism/Whiteness, yet were unacknowledged as reflective of critical thought. Where was this missing scholarship in criticality, critical literacy, and critical pedagogy? To be clear, where was the scholarship of Black people who wrote counter-narratives about who we are as a people brought from other shores?
I returned to Black scholarship written in response to the political and social circumstances framing their lives, that technically was not categorised or recognised as part of critical thought; I realised how their scholarship challenged the status quo and the failure of democracy to address inequality. This rich body of scholarship, beginning in the 1800s with David Walker, Frederick Douglass, W.E. B. DuBois, Anna Julia (Haywood) Cooper; continuing into the 1900s with James Baldwin, Frantz Fanon, bell hooks, C. L. R. James, and Cornel West; and, continuing into the 2000s with Eddie Glaude, Fred Moten, and Robyn Kelly, among others, remains an untapped resource among critical theorists. Collectively, the scholarship rested on ‘interrogating knowledge production itself’ (Kelley quoted in Taylor, 2023, para. 23). Black scholarship has helped to sharpen my focus on culture, ethnicity, identity, race, and racism within critical literacy.
I am especially connected to the familiarity, knowingness, and thinking of Black women scholars as part of a community of ‘radical thinkers who tirelessly imagined other ways to live and never failed to consider how the world might be otherwise’ (Hartman, 2019, p. xv). Their work provides a communal space born out of shared experiences and conversations. A space where you do not want the conversation to end, where you are cared for, loved, and nurtured with insight and wisdom. The life and scholarship of Anna Julia (Haywood) Cooper, the Mother of Black Feminism, have been immensely helpful in framing my understanding of critical literacy and social justice. Cooper's (1892 book A Voice from the South by a Black Woman of the South includes speeches and writings in which she exhibits cultural, economic, gendered, and racial discernment as necessary survival skills to be developed by Black women living in the United States (see also Lemert & Bhan, 1998). Cooper argues it is important to look ‘behind the veil’ to understand systems of power, acknowledging how hierarchies are established by White men and women, and some Black men. Her observations were conveyed in rich descriptive language and read among Black scholars but seemingly invisible to others. Cooper's writing about the experiences of Black women, anti-Black racism, economic classism, and gender bias informed Collins's (1990) notion of interlocking structures and Crenshaw's (1991) concept of intersectionality (identifying the multiple oppressions experienced by Black women). Crenshaw's discussion of the multiple oppressions facing Black women and how they are ignored in the judicial system as well as society continues to speak to me. Crenshaw (2021) has been an outspoken critic of the failure of the republic to live up to its values, writing ‘whiteness—not a simplistic racial categorization, but a deeply structured relationship to social coercion and group entitlement—remains a vibrant dimension of power in America’ (para. 5). In the United States and globally, people adopt a critical literacy perspective as they engage text to transform dis/misinformation about ideologies past, present, and future.
EQ: More recently, we continue to wrestle with increasing scholarship on racialization as an outcome of critical literacy while battling backlash at the same time in the form of a ban on Critical Race Theory, books, and science in what many view as a post-truth era. How can scholars and educators engage—nationally and internationally—with racialization as a function of critical literacy to collaboratively acknowledge and address diversity and difference while also producing change?
Concepts that underpin Black Lives Matter, CRT, and Woke, for instance, emerged out of Black experiences and suffering to economically express a deep and historical understanding of anti-Black racism and oppression in the United States. Black Lives Matter was coined in 2013, by Garza, Cullors, and Tometi n.d.) following the death of Trayvon Martin and the acquittal of George Zimmerman. Baptise (2021) submits that the co-option of Black language is an old racist tactic whose goal is to ‘take a radical message and muddle it enough until it means its opposite’ (para. 2). She tracks how Black language has been appropriated as a way of ‘reminding Black people of their place in society’ (para 8). Critical Race Theory emerged out of the scholarship of Derrick Bell (1980, 1995), and Bunyasi and Smith (2019) began using an old Black term (originally used in 1923) to express the importance of being ever-vigilant after the unjust murders of Black people in the United States. As the world reacted to the murder of George Floyd to contest the devaluing of Black lives and to demand equality, there was swift White backlash.
Sadly, vulgarised versions of each concept have become political flashpoints and weaponized euphemisms for anti-Black racism, from local school board meetings to political campaign ads as ‘They're flipped on their head, turned inside out, repurposed to sneer at the people they were meant to rally, and generally made to seem comical and ridiculous—a rhetorical minstrel act’ (Baptise, 2021, para 3). Politicised actions, events, and statements reflect White hegemonic discourses that also permeate educational and political discussions about education crises and reform and are re-messaged as solutions while obfuscating educational inequity. We witnessed systems of oppression by the media and politicians, who intentionally or ignorantly co-opted, misappropriated, and profited from Black language when marketed to foment hate and racial division.
Opponents have countered his argument is ‘an attempt to obscure the issue’ (Crenshaw, quoted in Jackson, 2021, para. 3). They quickly point out that ‘the chronic failure to confront the monsters of our past is not destiny; it's a daily choice to accept American myth in the face of so much countervailing evidence’ (Crenshaw, 2021, para. 12). From a critical literacy perspective, Rufo's attempt to appear ecumenical belies his aggressive push to instantiate White supremacy as the foundation of US education, history, and nation building. Most educators are aware that critical race theory is a legal concept not taught in P-12 and rarely taught in graduate and undergraduate courses (the concept has been applied to education by Ladson-Billings and Tate, 1995, as a lens to better understand the role of systemic racism in the field). The zest to adopt anti-CRT laws is part of the backlash following the global support of racial justice and the fear of accurately revealing the history of racism throughout US history.
The word ‘woke’ has been sufficiently fleshed out in Bunyasi and Smith (2019). There has been a deliberate misappropriation of the word woke, for economic and political gain. Beyond the politically inflammatory rhetoric of Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, and his attempt to use the term as an acronym in his Stop W.O.K.E. legislation (the Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act), it has become a coded reference to anti-Blackness. Among the most sensational blunders has been the publicly broadcast interview with Bethany Mandel. In the interview with the author, someone who has loudly decried the concept of ‘woke’, a journalist asks her to define what she means by the term. Mandel, who claims to have co-authored an entire chapter about the concept in a recent book, is caught off-guard and struggles to articulate a coherent response. In fact, throughout the brief but painful incident, she voices greater concern about how she will appear on social media than about her incoherent response. Indeed, she received millions of scathing responses to her lack of knowledge and inability to define the term. Unsurprisingly, as the uproar waned, she was privileged to write a response in a popular online periodical, explaining her anxiety and tears (Mandel, 2023). From a critical literacy perspective, the White main/right-wing media discourse feeds into and exacerbates the importance of considering the feelings of White women (the damsel in distress when confronted by the Black female reporter). Throughout Mandel's privileged publication, she does not provide a definition of ‘woke’ and fails to mention that she is profiting from misinformation. No one knows or appears to value the untold damage in the lives of Black and Brown children that her discourse is likely to cause. And, to date, the periodical has not privileged someone with knowledge of the origins of the term woke, to define it for the public.
As scholars who embrace, promote, teach, and conduct critical literacy research, we must not remain silent about racial and social injustice, and we must exercise a commitment to eradicating racism in theory and praxis.
EQ: As you look toward a future for literacy, where and how do you see critical literacy forging a path for ALL students to thrive together in solidarity?
AIW: Foremost among the new pathways that I envisage for critical literacy is building on the intersection of race and linguistic ideologies explored in brilliant discussions of raciolinguistics (Flores & Rosa, 2015; Rosa & Flores, 2017) and Smith's (2022) concept of transraciolinguistics in a global metaverse. These frameworks, among others, make clear linkages among, colonialism, imperialism, linguicide, and White supremacy in the United States and globally, historically and contemporaneously. They point to European imperialism and colonialism as a global issue, not just one in the United States, ever evolving to retain power. It also is critical to recognise what Rosa and Flores (2015) refer to as the ‘co-production’ and ‘co-naturalisation’ of race and language that work to instantiate systems of dominance and oppression.
Menashy and Zakharia (2022) expand on the need for global understandings about race and racism in their research on White ignorance, informed by Charles Stuart Mills's (1997, 2007, 2015) concept of White ignorance. Specifically, they highlight that white ignorance is ‘White misunderstanding, misrepresentation, evasion, and self-deception on matters related to race’ (Mills, 1997, pp. 18–19, quoted in Menashy & Zakharia). The authors' scholarship includes interrogating global education policy because it is often impacted by and modelled after the geopolitical Global North in general and the United States specifically. They note that ‘within global education bodies, racism has been largely considered a US problem, thereby denying White supremacy as a global system. This sanitizing and silencing of racism—or White ignorance—has inhibited structural change in global education policies and practices’ (p. 39). They also acknowledge that race as a social construct is not understood the same way globally; however, everywhere it lingers from histories and contemporary manifestations of global colonialism and imperialism. Menashy and Zakharia submit that ‘racial hierarchy within international development is perpetuated through narratives that have been reframed and sanitized without ascribing the term race to categories that derive from racialized colonial groupings’ (p. 465). Their findings from interviews and document analyses suggest that white global ignorance is willful, as government educational agencies avoid discussions of race, racism, and White supremacy. Many countries evade, ignore, or minimise their own histories and contemporary manifestations of racism. The authors conclude: ‘without addressing global White ignorance, education scholars fail to interrogate a core element to structural global inequities, and policy and advocacy leaders serve to reinscribe power hierarchies at play within the colonial education development industry. (p. 478).
Collectively, researchers, including critical literacy researchers (Mora personal communication, April 2023), are challenging the world to address race and racism globally. Pérez Huber et al. (2023) refer to the avoidance of race as aracialism where ‘analysis … lacks and/or dismisses the consideration of race and racism’ (footnote 2, p. 14). Ironically, it is the very research needed. While it is equally important to continue engagement in critical projects that examine the use of language in text and technology, it is imperative to pursue change in the language, enactment, and enforcement of educational policies to effect racial and social justice.
衷心感谢编辑们邀请我参加本期特刊。我受宠若惊地受到邀请,并倍加高兴地分享我的想法。我可以自由地通过采访或书面文本来回应;后者最适合我。我写这封信的语气是希望传达一种面试可能发生的方式,因为我考虑了电话的框架,并回答了为这次谈话提出的一些问题。我是一名美国学者,因此,在将对话扩展到全球的同时,我的回答是关于美国不断发展的批判理论概念。我的研究范围包括质疑传统的读写历史,尤其是美国的读写历史。我之所以这样做,部分原因是质疑殖民主义、欧洲中心主义,以及西方对读写能力的定义和观点,这些定义和观点没有承认读写能力是一种全球性的建构。从批判的角度来看,我明白,孤立的欧洲中心地缘政治文化观点的延续并非偶然;它们是有意为之的,旨在强化对文化优势和权力的追求。我认为,要使文学史民主化,我们必须包括非欧洲人和非英语占主导地位的人的读写能力,因为在欧洲人意识到他们的存在之前,一些群体的读写能力已经存在了几个世纪。重述世界文化的历史超出了这个回答的可用空间,但来自非洲侨民的一个例子可能有助于澄清这一点。由黑人学者撰写的黑人读写史,承认黑人的成就、才华、文化、经历、语言和读写能力。需要明确的是,数百万非洲人在整个美洲被捕获、运送和奴役,这使得Diouf(1998,2011)估计,被运送到美洲的非洲奴隶中约有10%是识字的。这句话的影响很难理解。被奴役的非洲人有文化的想法支持了一种与传统的文化历史相反的叙述,这种文化历史起源于希腊和意大利。在不可否认的历史事实面前,承认在大多数欧洲人获得识字能力之前就有成千上万的非洲人存在,将会受到质疑。此外,人们可能会强烈要求洗白几个世纪以来对非洲人后裔的错误描述,认为他们在生理上、基因上和智力上都无法学习阅读。非洲人后裔的病态化在欧洲和美洲最为明显,尽管其影响是全球性的。奥马尔·伊本·赛义德的自传是唯一已知的由一个被奴役的人写的自传(Alryyes and Said, 2011)。他的自传是美国以前被奴役的非洲人后裔写的数百本自传之一。同样重要的是全球前被奴役的非洲人后裔的自传,例如巴西、加拿大、英国、海地等国(另见Khan, 2020年)。总的来说,这些文本是黑人在奴役下生活的代表性第一手资料,必须在包容性的文学史中得到承认,庆祝和回收。在对奥马尔·伊本·赛义德(Omar Ibn Said)自传的读写能力分析中,我发现了一些具有启发性的信息,说明读写能力在西方之外扮演的角色,并不受美国例外论、欧洲中心主义或白人至上主义的影响。在他的自传中,奥马尔·伊本·赛义德在面对白人至上主义时大胆地宣称他的人性。他的认识论和意识形态立场并不根植于欧洲或美国——而是非洲和伊斯兰——这对他的生存至关重要。理解扫盲的新方法,一种超越的方法(威利斯,即将出版),将扫盲的定义民主化并重新概念化:尊重每个人作为人类同胞的人性,将扫盲作为一项人权提供,将扫盲理解为一种全球建构,并产生经过验证的知识。经过验证的知识不是从殖民者开始的,也不是从了解殖民者的认知方式开始的。经过认证的知识始于批判性意识,这种意识检查并重视世界上最接近它的人所解释的文化、民族、性别、语言、种族和宗教知识。我们都可以从所有文化、民族、性别、语言、种族和宗教群体广泛而包容的扫盲史中学习。这些知识应该告知批判性读写研究人员,因为他们在不同的人群中工作。我们应该问问自己,正如Brayboy等人在2012年所建议的那样:“你能在认识论(认识方式)、本体论(存在方式)、价值论(价值体系)和研究过程之间想象出什么样的联系?”(第427页)。 我们也可以学会去中心化白人,摒弃对非欧洲中心和非英语主导民族的文化的殖民主义立场。当我们学会重视和重视非洲人、阿拉伯人和穆斯林人、亚洲人、拉丁人、美洲原住民和土著认识论时,这需要付出努力。我们必须学会超越白人的眼光,培养具有批判性和社会公正的文化。这可能吗?这在现代社会现实吗?这是绝对可能的,正如Pandya等人(2022)的《批判性素养手册》(The Handbook of critical literacies)在其杰出的批判性素养理论纲要中所描述的那样。跨国编辑集团,跨国批判素养网络的创始人提出了一个汇编(50章)的批判素养和社会正义的奖学金。他们加强了我们对批判理论的理解,因为他们承认他们“有意地尝试拓宽和多样化学者,这些学者可能会在复兴的批判文学保护伞下找到知识家园”(第x页)。在承认当前知识和理论方法的同时,在批判文学中建立和扩展历史、传统和理论;他们将批判性素养定义为“个人为了在世界上生存和发展而需要的文学实践,突出了信息和文本从来都不是中立的概念;他们有能力写出强有力的文本来解决不公正和我们的生活世界”(第3页)。重要的是,他们强调,“我们有意利用多种批判认识论,包括来自全球南方和全球北方的欧洲、黑人和土著思想家的认识论”(第3页)。这样做,他们扩大了批判理论化的范围,并反思性地注意到传统上由全球北方学者主导的批判性素养的意义转变。“尤其是白人、说英语的话语”(Mora et al., 2022,第466页)。传统的框架“有时掩盖了学者和非英语国家在跨越不同语言讨论读写能力时所面临的关注”(第466页)。这些编辑和作者代表了多个地缘政治空间,他们参与并重新构想了批判性读写和读写方法、评估、课程、教学、方法、实践和理论,包括文化、种族、性别、语言和种族。EQ:从历史上看,你来自一长串学者和一个文学传统,这个传统经历了各种各样的演变浪潮,为我们今天所认为的批判性文学提供了信息。告诉我们,自从你进入这个领域以来,你经历了哪些重大的转变?是什么让你选择批判性读写作为改变课堂和学校的工具?AIW:我从自己的旅程片段开始,然后是卢克(2018)的批判性素养奖学金和克伦肖(1991、2021)的批判性种族理论奖学金的简短评论。作为学院的一名黑人女性,我的人生历程一直是既有个人意义又有政治意义的。我倾向于思考压迫和权力在塑造20世纪70年代美国黑人成长过程中的作用。在进入教授职位之前,我阅读了黑人奖学金,并很快了解到,在一些白人学者中,这是一种被低估的资源。我在学院的理论之旅始于批判理论(CT),因为我广泛阅读了它的基础,找到了一个既熟悉又独特的理论空间。尽管在欧洲,CT更专注于社会经济阶层与权力的关系,但在美国,我对这种以社会阶层、权力和种族为中心的对话并不陌生。随着更广泛的批判理论概念的出现,我渴望研究它们在识字方面的启示。我扩大了阅读范围,包括美国和其他国家从事批判性文学研究的批评理论家,包括已故的巴西学者保罗·弗莱雷(Paulo Freire)。我在CT中发现了传统文学史中所缺失的早期意识形态空间。后来,我成为了一个信徒,或Freirediana,阅读他和他同时代人写的所有东西。然而,上世纪90年代末,我参加了在美国东北部奥马哈市举行的戏剧教育学会议后,我的想法开始发生转变。保罗·弗莱雷出席并回答了观众的问题。当被问及为什么种族/种族主义和性别问题很少出现在他的作品中时,他显得明显不舒服。通过翻译,他为自己对女性的疏忽道歉,但没有参与种族问题的讨论。当时,我对巴西复杂而令人烦恼的种族和种族主义历史知之甚少。 他们还表达了对CT的根源的不安,这反映在欧洲人的理论,以白人为中心的学术,以及缺乏对全球和全国种族化和受压迫的人的包容。在读完贝尔·胡克斯(1994)的《向越轨的教学》(Teaching to Transgress)一书后,我很惊讶,并开始思考,我是否误读了他对批判性文化的关注?他认为谁是巴西的受压迫者,或者不认为谁是?接下来,我阅读了他编辑过的文本《指导导师:与保罗·弗莱雷的批判性对话》,格洛丽亚·拉德森·比林斯(1997)在其中讨论了种族是批判性教育学中缺失的一个特征。我需要理解弗莱雷(2002)对批判性素养的描述,这促使我进行更深入的研究,重新阅读他的《批判意识教育》(1973),其中他承认巴西的奴隶制(再次,不确定种族),以及他的《被压迫者教育学》(1970),其中他提到的被压迫者是用“农民”这个词来表达的。谁在20世纪中期被认为是巴西农民?我是否认为他会承认巴西的受压迫者是穷人,他们也是黑人、棕色人种和土著人?显然,他并没有明确地以种族来区分人(这段时期和后代的照片说明了种族差异)。他关注的是那些穷人,那些处于巴西社会边缘,没有文化、民族、性别、语言或种族标识的人。为了更好地掌握这门语言,我甚至报了葡萄牙语班;是不是在翻译过程中遗漏了什么?我想知道,作为一名黑人美国人,我是否把他的奖学金浪漫化了,没有看到它在巴西种族/种族主义方面的缺点。2014年,在巴西参加富布赖特项目期间,我探索了保罗·弗莱雷的生活、奖学金和遗产。我阅读他的作品,参加课程、研讨会、每月的Freirediana会议,以及全州范围内的保罗·弗莱雷会议。我还采访了弗莱雷奖学金的信徒,他们在南里奥格兰德州继续他的工作。在这些经历中,弗莱雷受到了尊敬,被誉为人民的英雄,因其在文学方面的成就而受到尊敬,被人们怀着极大的感激之情铭记,并受到一些人的崇拜。在我的一次采访中,Imaculada被转移到一个恍惚的空间,她颤抖着,当她回忆起他对她生活的影响时,她的眼睛里充满了泪水,泪水轻轻地从她的脸上滚下来(Willis, 2017, p. 47)。她拥有博士学位,曾担任RS大众教育协调员,并在大学水平上使用弗莱雷的理论和教学模式进行教学。她的行动远远超过了教授研究生课程和撰写学术论文,她每个学期都继续与州政府谈判,在她所在社区的一些最贫穷的黑人社区提供免费的成人扫盲课程。我同意他的观点,但他最初对法农2008年提出的解决殖民主义、压迫和种族问题的批判意识概念的认同不够充分,这让我感到困扰。在我的世界里,解决种族和种族主义问题是批判性素养不可或缺的一部分。在巴西期间,我开始了解他的学术研究,弗莱雷对巴西地缘政治背景下种族和种族主义的缺乏关注,以及他对历史和当代种族和种族主义的研究方法。弗莱雷不断发展的关于“自觉性”的定义(Willis et al., 2008)令人担忧,因为批判性素养的一个基本特征似乎最小化并使种族主义和种族主义无法解释。虽然法农和弗莱雷正确地理解了批判意识作为批判素养基石的重要性,但他们的方法不同;解决种族和种族主义问题是批判性素养不可或缺的一部分。我也开始怀疑——似乎是——作为一种全球现象的批判性意识学术的缺失。对你所生活的世界如何在经济、智力、道德、政治和社会方面发挥作用的批判性理解,似乎并不局限于西欧、男性、经济地位或社会地位。当然,除了法兰克福学派和批判理论(CT)的演变之外,还有一些人以不根植于美国主义/欧洲中心主义/白人主义的方式表达了他们对世界的看法,但却没有被认为是批判性思想的反映。在批判性、批判性素养和批判性教育学方面缺失的学术在哪里?要明确的是,黑人的学术研究在哪里,他们写了关于我们作为一个来自其他海岸的人是谁的反叙事?我回到了黑人学者的研究中这些研究都是对塑造他们生活的政治和社会环境的回应,这些在技术上并没有被归类或认可为批判性思维的一部分;我意识到,他们的学术成就挑战了现状,挑战了民主在解决不平等问题上的失败。 这一丰富的学术体系始于19世纪,由大卫·沃克、弗雷德里克·道格拉斯、w.e.b.杜波依斯、安娜·朱莉娅(海伍德)·库珀;进入20世纪后,还有詹姆斯·鲍德温、弗朗茨·法农、贝尔·胡克斯、c·l·r·詹姆斯和康奈尔·韦斯特;进入21世纪后,还有艾迪·格劳德、弗雷德·莫滕和罗宾·凯利等人,在批判理论家中仍然是一个未开发的资源。总的来说,这一奖学金依赖于“对知识生产本身的质疑”(Kelley引用Taylor, 2023,第18段)。23)。黑人奖学金帮助我更加关注文化、种族、身份、种族和批判文化中的种族主义。我对黑人女性学者的熟悉、了解和思考尤其感兴趣,她们是“激进的思想家,不知疲倦地想象着其他的生活方式,从未忘记考虑世界可能是怎样的”(哈特曼,2019年,第xv页)。她们的工作提供了一个公共空间,诞生于共同的经历和对话。一个你不希望谈话结束的地方,一个你被关心、被爱、被培养洞察力和智慧的地方。黑人女权主义之母安娜·朱莉娅(海伍德)·库珀(Anna Julia (Haywood) Cooper)的生平和学术成就,极大地帮助了我构建对批判性素养和社会正义的理解。库珀(1892)的著作《南方黑人妇女的声音》(A Voice from the South by A Black Woman of southern)包括了她的演讲和著作,她在书中展示了文化、经济、性别和种族辨别能力,这些是生活在美国的黑人妇女必须掌握的生存技能(参见Lemert &;Bhan, 1998)。库珀认为,重要的是要透过“面纱”来理解权力体系,承认等级制度是如何由白人男性和女性以及一些黑人男性建立起来的。她的观察以丰富的描述性语言表达出来,在黑人学者中广为流传,但其他人似乎看不见。库珀关于黑人妇女的经历、反黑人种族主义、经济阶级主义和性别偏见的写作,为柯林斯(1990)的联锁结构概念和克伦肖(1991)的交叉性概念(识别黑人妇女所经历的多重压迫)提供了信息。克伦肖关于黑人女性所面临的多重压迫以及她们如何在司法系统和社会中被忽视的讨论一直在对我说话。克伦肖(2021)直言不讳地批评了这个共和国未能实现其价值观,他写道:“白人——不是一种简单的种族分类,而是与社会强制和群体权利的一种深刻的结构性关系——仍然是美国权力的一个充满活力的维度。”5)在美国和全球范围内,人们采用批判性素养的观点,因为他们使用文本来改变关于过去、现在和未来意识形态的dis/misinformation。最近,我们继续与越来越多的关于种族化的学术研究作斗争,这是批判性素养的结果,同时,在许多人认为是后真相时代,我们还在与对批判性种族理论、书籍和科学的禁令作斗争。学者和教育工作者如何在国内和国际上参与种族化作为批判性素养的功能,共同承认和解决多样性和差异,同时也产生变化?例如,“黑人的命也重要”、“CRT”和“觉醒”等运动的基础概念,都是从黑人的经历和苦难中产生的,以经济的方式表达了对美国反黑人种族主义和压迫的深刻历史理解。2013年,在特雷沃恩·马丁(Trayvon Martin)死亡和乔治·齐默尔曼(George Zimmerman)无罪释放之后,Garza、Cullors和Tometi等人创造了“黑人的命也是命”这个词。Baptise(2021)提出,黑人语言的选择是一种古老的种族主义策略,其目标是“采取激进的信息,并混淆它,直到它意味着相反的意思”(第21段)。2)她追踪了黑人语言是如何被用作“提醒黑人他们在社会中的地位”的一种方式(第8段)。批判种族理论(Critical Race Theory)源于德里克·贝尔(Derrick Bell, 1980年、1995年)的学术研究,邦亚西和史密斯(Bunyasi and Smith, 2019年)开始使用一个古老的黑人术语(最初使用于1923年)来表达在美国黑人遭到不公正谋杀后保持警惕的重要性。当世界对乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)谋杀案作出反应,反对贬低黑人生命并要求平等时,白人迅速做出了反应。可悲的是,从当地学校董事会会议到政治竞选广告,每个概念的庸俗版本都成为了反黑人种族主义的政治爆发点和委婉的武器,因为“他们被翻过来,翻过来,重新用来嘲笑他们本来要团结的人,通常看起来滑稽可笑——一种修辞上的吟游诗人行为”(Baptise, 2021,第3段)。 政治化的行动、事件和声明反映了白人霸权话语,这些话语也渗透到有关教育危机和改革的教育和政治讨论中,并在混淆教育不平等的同时被重新传递为解决方案。我们目睹了媒体和政客的压迫制度,他们有意或无意地利用、挪用黑人语言,并从中获利,以煽动仇恨和种族分裂。反对者反驳说,他的论点是“试图模糊问题”(克伦肖,引用于《杰克逊》,2021年,第18段)。他们很快指出,“长期无法面对过去的怪物并不是我们的命运;面对如此多的反证据,接受美国神话是一种日常选择”(克伦肖,2021年,第21段)。12)。从批判性读写的角度来看,鲁福试图表现出普世主义,掩盖了他将白人至上主义作为美国教育、历史和国家建设基础的积极推动。大多数教育工作者都意识到,批判种族理论是一个法律概念,没有在P-12课程中教授,也很少在研究生和本科课程中教授(Ladson-Billings和Tate于1995年将这一概念应用于教育,作为更好地理解该领域系统性种族主义作用的一个镜头)。在全球对种族正义的支持和对准确揭示美国历史上的种族主义历史的恐惧之后,采取反crt法律的热情是反弹的一部分。“觉醒”这个词在Bunyasi和Smith(2019)中得到了充分的充实。为了经济和政治利益,“觉醒”这个词一直被蓄意滥用。佛罗里达州州长罗恩·德桑蒂斯(Ron DeSantis)发表了煽动性的政治言论,并试图在他的《停止对我们孩子和雇员的错误法案》(Stop the wrong to Our Kids and Employees Act)中使用这个词作为首字母缩略词,除此之外,这个词已经成为反黑人的暗喻。最耸人听闻的错误之一是公开播出对贝萨尼·曼德尔的采访。在采访这位大声谴责“觉醒”概念的作者时,一名记者请她定义一下这个词的含义。曼德尔声称,他在最近的一本书中与人合写了一整章关于这个概念的内容,他对此猝不及防,努力表达出一个连贯的回应。事实上,在这个短暂但痛苦的事件中,她更担心的是自己在社交媒体上的形象,而不是自己语无伦次的回应。事实上,她收到了数以百万计的严厉回应,指责她缺乏知识,无法定义这个词。不出所料,随着骚动的减弱,她有幸在一份流行的在线期刊上写了一篇回应,解释了她的焦虑和眼泪(曼德尔,2023)。从批判性素养的角度来看,白人主流/右翼媒体话语助长并加剧了考虑白人女性情感的重要性(面对黑人女记者时陷入困境的少女)。在曼德尔的特权出版物中,她没有提供“觉醒”的定义,也没有提到她正在从错误的信息中获利。没有人知道,似乎也没有人重视她的演讲可能给黑人和棕色人种儿童的生活造成的难以估量的伤害。而且,到目前为止,该杂志还没有授权了解“觉醒”一词起源的人为公众定义它。作为接受、促进、教授和开展批判性读写研究的学者,我们不能对种族和社会不公正保持沉默,我们必须在理论和实践中践行消除种族主义的承诺。EQ:当你展望读写能力的未来时,你认为批判性读写能力在哪里以及如何为所有学生创造一条团结一致的发展之路?AIW:在我所设想的批判性读写的新途径中,最重要的是建立在种族和语言意识形态的交叉点上,这在种族语言学的精彩讨论中得到了探索(弗洛雷斯&罗莎,2015;罗莎,弗洛雷斯(Flores, 2017)和史密斯(Smith, 2022)在全球元宇宙中的跨种族语言学概念。除其他外,这些框架明确了美国和全球历史上和当代的殖民主义、帝国主义、语言灭绝和白人至上主义之间的联系。他们指出,欧洲帝国主义和殖民主义是一个全球问题,而不仅仅是美国的问题,不断演变以保持权力。同样重要的是,要认识到罗莎和弗洛雷斯(2015)所说的种族和语言的“共同生产”和“共同归化”,它们有助于实例化统治和压迫系统。Menashy和Zakharia(2022)在他们对白人无知的研究中扩展了对种族和种族主义的全球理解的必要性,并借鉴了Charles Stuart Mills(1997、2007、2015)的白人无知概念。具体来说,他们强调白人的无知是“白人在种族问题上的误解、歪曲、逃避和自我欺骗”(Mills, 1997,第7页)。 18-19,引自Menashy &Zakharia)。作者的研究包括对全球教育政策的质疑,因为它经常受到全球北方地缘政治的影响,并以其为模型,特别是美国。他们指出,“在全球教育机构中,种族主义在很大程度上被认为是美国的问题,因此否认白人至上是一种全球体系。”这种对种族主义或白人无知的消毒和沉默抑制了全球教育政策和实践的结构性变化。他们还承认,种族作为一种社会结构在全球范围内的理解不尽相同;然而,在全球殖民主义和帝国主义的历史和当代表现中,它无处不在。Menashy和Zakharia提出,“国际发展中的种族等级制度通过重新定义和净化的叙述得以延续,而不将种族一词归因于源自种族化殖民群体的类别”(第465页)。他们从采访和文件分析中发现,白人对全球的无知是故意的,因为政府教育机构避免讨论种族、种族主义和白人至上主义。许多国家回避、忽视或尽量减少本国历史和当代种族主义的表现。作者总结道:“如果不解决全球白人的无知问题,教育学者就无法质疑全球结构性不平等的核心因素,政策和倡导领导人在殖民教育发展行业中重新确立了权力等级制度。”(p。478)。总的来说,研究人员,包括批判性素养研究人员(Mora个人交流,2023年4月),正在挑战世界,以解决全球种族和种族主义问题。prez Huber et al.(2023)将回避种族视为种族主义,因为“分析……缺乏和/或忽视种族和种族主义的考虑”(脚注2,第14页)。讽刺的是,这正是我们所需要的研究。虽然继续参与研究文本和技术中语言使用的关键项目同样重要,但必须追求语言,制定和执行教育政策的变化,以实现种族和社会正义。
期刊介绍:
Literacy is the official journal of the United Kingdom Literacy Association (formerly the United Kingdom Reading Association), the professional association for teachers of literacy. Literacy is a refereed journal for those interested in the study and development of literacy. Its readership comprises practitioners, teacher educators, researchers and both undergraduate and graduate students. Literacy offers educators a forum for debate through scrutinising research evidence, reflecting on analysed accounts of innovative practice and examining recent policy developments.