Sponsors of Literacy

Deborah Brandt introduces the concept of sponsors of literacy in her 1998 essay "Sponsors of Literacy."  When thinking about sponsors of literacy, it is easier to understand the concept if you put it into a non-literary context.  When a Coca Cola provides sponsorship for a television show, Coke is the company paying money which allows the show to remain on the air.  This is not a one-way relationship, however.  Coke isn't paying all this money just for the benefit of the TV producers and television audience; Coca Cola gets something out of it too.  Coke provides sponsorship to work as advertising for their company, and then people get to watch TV.

Literary sponsorship works in the same way.  There are many societal things that sponsor literacy, some of them being work places or religious institutions.  Brandt uses many examples of literary sponsorship in her essay, including the church for African American slaves and a union job for a factory worker.  When slaves were taught how to read by the church, it was not just for the sake of intelligence.  Church goers were receiving salvation for spreading the word of god, and in the mean time, slaves learned how to read.  A factory worker was sent to workshops to learn how to be a union leader, and in the mean time, became a better reader, writer, and negotiator.  

This is the first time I have thought about the reciprocal relationship of literacy.  Before, I thought of literacy as a one-way street.  Someone teaches a student how to read, and the student benefits.  With this new idea of sponsors of literacy, I can see that the student is not the only person benefiting from literacy acquisition.  Perhaps the church did not have the best intentions and motivations when teaching slaves how to read, but the benefits for slaves far outweighed the not-so-great intentions. 

How to Tame a Wild Tongue

"Until I am free to write bilingually and to switch codes without having to always translate, while I still have to speak English or Spanish when I would rather speak Spanglish, and as long as I have to accommodate the English speaker rather than having them accommodate me, my tongue will be illegitimate" (41).

At the beginning of "How to Take a Wild Tongue," Gloria Anzuldula recounts the numerous times her teachers or parents chastised her for speaking Spanish.  In the words of her teacher, who punished Anzuldula for speaking Spanish at recess, "If you want to be American, speak 'American'" (36).  Being a future teacher and a "culturally sensitive" citizen, I couldn't help but be appalled at the attitudes displayed by her mother and teacher.  Cultural identity is important!  Each person is unique.  How could Anzuldula ever possess self-confidence or self-respect if she is not even allowed to respect her own language?

Then I continued reading the rest of the essay.  It was challenging and I was frustrated.  I don't speak a lick of Spanish, and large sections of the essay are written in Spanish, a language I cannot understand.  Some of the text is translated, but much of it is not.  At first I used my trusty Google Translator, but it became so tedious that I ended up sounding out the words and using context clues, which didn't help much.  I was utterly lost, and thought to myself "Why can't she just write in English!"

Anzuldula must have picked up that self-respect and self-confidence despite her parents and teachers, since she is clearly comfortable speaking her own blend of English and Spanish.  She wrote that "... as long as I have to accommodate the English speaker rather than having them accommodate me, my tongue will be illegitimate" (41).  After reading that section of the essay, I realized that I was acting just like her teacher from earlier in the essay.  Anzuldula does have a legitimate language, and she should not have to accommodate me.   

Superficial Tests of Discourse Fluency

"Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction" and "What is Literacy," both written by linguist James Paul Gee, define and explain the presence of different Discourses in language.  A Discourse is specific way to talk and act, or as Gee puts it, is an "..."identity kit" which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act and talk so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize" (537).  Throughout his essays, Gee emphasizes that Discourses cannot be overtly taught, they must be acquired.  He also insists that unlike in languages, where a person might know a language but is not fluent, a person either is fluent in a Discourse or is not.  There is no in-between, no "functionally literate."

Gee explains that fluency in a Discourse of power serves as a gateway for non-mainstream people.  However, "gateway" is not synonymous with "open door."  A gate can be opened or closed.  It can be a barrier or an open door.  Unless someone is fluent in a Discourse, they will not have access to the opportunities available.  Gee talks about how people often judge fluency in a Discourse with superficial features, which are often the petty, and in the grand scheme of things, unimportant grammatical details of a Discourse. "...Superficial features are the best test as to whether one was apprenticed in the "right" place, at the "right" time, with the "right" people.  Such superficial features are exactly the parts of the Discourses most impervious to overt instruction and are only fully mastered when everything else in the Discourse is mastered" (531).   Superficial features are the test to see if someone belongs, and mastery of them can be the difference between having a gate unlocked or slammed shut.

I find myself often judging people on their use of grammar and even sentence structure when determining "how smart" they are.  Are "your" and "you're" used correctly?  What about "its" and "it's?"  At work, when reviewing resumes, I look at run-on sentences, incorrect comma use, and spelling errors as red flags.  It doesn't matter that I know what is trying to be said, or even if I see a qualified potential employee.  I only see mistakes, the signs of an outsider.  I think this contributes to why some lower-class people may encounter difficulty finding a job or climbing the socioeconomic ladder.  As Gee said, a Discourse cannot be taught, it must be acquired.  If a person is raised in a setting where the dominant Discourses, those Discourses of power, are not used, then it will be difficult to become encultured in them and master them.  The test of superficial features reveal that a person is trying to fake it, so the gate remains shut.  Then, without access to that Discourse, it will never be mastered.  This vicious circle can explain why climbing the socioeconomic ladder is so difficult.