Identity Theories
How
am I making sense of these identity theories? This is a broad question and at
this point I am left with further questions. These questions guide me through the
mess of differences and comparisons among NLS, but what I'm really stuck on right
now is how this is anything new? How are identity theories moving us forward when
we still have not figured out how knowledge is created inside the human brain?
Bartlett
(2007) suggest sociocultural approaches to literacy are integrating identity to
further our thinking of ways for individuals to position themselves-not into a
fixed box, but instead as an ongoing ability to fit ourselves in interactions
with others. To me the missing piece is the ghost that resides inside the
brain. No one knows how the creation of meaning is processed. As a society, we
have come to the social cultural agreement on labels moving us through social
worlds because representation is social.
Can you
memorize an object without a definition? The machine is inside the individual and the individual has
to activate that knowledge. The world cannot do that- it is still up to the individual
to situate the meaning. I like the idea of the habitus
as a concept to describe the lifestyle, physical and linguistic characteristics
of a social group, that are influenced by the external environment-almost as a
puppet is controlled by strings. I
look forward to our discussions this week to push me further and bridge this
gap I am feeling. I have been
working to change my thinking to understand how children situate their
identities and what do they do with their environments.
Beth,
ReplyDeleteDo you think that only individuals can make their own meaning? Because, in a way, I feel that sometimes teachers, especially those teaching within an autonomous model of literacy, eliminate self-meaning-making. Perhaps it is because I have been preparing my PowerPoint presentation for my undergraduates today and we are going to discuss how comprehension teaching and learning has changed. Anyway, in one of the articles we read, it discussed how there was a time when we had many students who were wonderful word callers, but couldn't make meaning from what they were reading, because teachers hadn't taught them to do it. So, that brought me back to your question. Could teachers who teach from a teacher-centered, information giver perspective in a way making the meaning for their students? Students aren't expected or required to do any real meaning-making, only to recall and memorize. It reminds me of last week's articles - the teacher has all the power and expects students to behave and respond according to their figured world, thus inhibiting identity formation and deleting students' agency.
~Sarah
Questions, questions, questions. I was felt with question too after the readings. I am intrigued by your perspective of the brain and how it processes knowledge to activate meaning. I would argue that it would depend on what how you think we come to this world. If you think we come to this world 'tabula rasa' (as a blank slate), then our identities and brains are shaped by the same sociocultural forces. On the other hand there is innatism (that not all knowledge comes from experience), and therefore we have some core knowledge or in the language of our readings, a 'core identity' which eventually gives extended by sediments and laminates. I say this because your question assumes that the machine and the individual are separate. Maybe form another point of view they are not so separate but one entity.
ReplyDeleteBeth, your line: "As a society, we have come to the social cultural agreement on labels moving us through social worlds because representation is social"...Can I just say it gets right to the heart of it all. The idea of a social construct is still relatively new to me; I learned the term two years ago when I joined CPS's equity team. And it's been echoing in my head since reading Lammers and Marsh (2017) and thinking about the identity cube metaphor, because, honestly, this idea of being a researcher and articulating lenses and using them to analyze and explain learning...it's all about how we articulate the social constructs that we are using to explain mental phenomena.
ReplyDeleteYour idea about the individual situating the meaning...I saw that in both Compton-Lilly's Peter and Lammers and Marsh's Laura. They ultimately defined themselves as writers through interpretation of their identity as reflected back from friends, mentors, and teachers. I have been thinking about it quite a bit with my research on stigmatized readers. Regardless of the meaning the habitus puts upon a term like "struggling", it can be situated differently by the individual. For some individuals, it can be ignored or treated as innocently as a word like "tall" or "young" while others situate it in such a way that it becomes burdensome. I am definitely looking forward to class discussion.
Beth,
ReplyDeleteI too was intrigued by habitus. Bourdieu (1980) and Bourdieu & Passeron (1977) talk about habitus as an adaptable situé wherein over time the individual evolves and changes their habitus - how they communicate, live, understand, etc. - to accommodate new situations; however, these changes tend to be incorporated slowly and unconsciously as elaborations rather than drastic changes to existing dispositions (Compton-Lilly, 2014, p. 375). I suppose, this is why Peter despite the best efforts or intentions of his teachers, towards the end of the research project seemed reluctant to do what others saw him doing.