Brown 1
Grace Brown
November 30, 2010
Dr. Michael Harker
DALN Analysis
“Without that panic and fear, I would never have started writing and so in a way I am
grateful for what happened to me” (Kleiner, “Finding writing through panic attacks”).
In searching for common inhibitors of literacy, I found that the very inhibitors
enumerated by Sara Webb-Sunderhaus in “A Family Affair” (alcohol, poverty, disease)
manifest themselves as sponsors of literacy in many narratives on the DALN. If this is
true, then the definitions of literacy sponsors and inhibitors are interchangeable, which
drastically affects the social constructiveness of literacy. Most people assume the
inhibitors of literacy are universal and easy to pinpoint, but I have come to understand
that there is nothing definitive about literacy sponsorship and obstruction. This has even
greater implications for the definition of literacy. If the factors that enhance or deter
literacy cannot be defined, then the processes of defining and constructs of literacy also
become blurred. In this essay, I will examine various DALN literacy narratives that
highlight literacy sponsors and inhibitors. First, I will explore excerpts from selections of
the DALN that showcase various literacy sponsors. Second, I will discuss the fluid nature
between sponsorships and obstructions of literacy, and the implications for defining
literacy. Finally, I will share a personal experience that highlights the ambiguous nature
of literacy. While I will not define literacy or deliver a foolproof method of labeling the
literate, I will attempt to analyze and condense personal experience and the experiences
Brown 2
of others in order to add to the ever changing and modernizing face of literacy studies.
Enjoy!
Bryan Kleiner suffers from extreme anxiety, which manifests itself in the form
of panic attacks. His struggles with suicidal thoughts and debilitating fear result in his
withdrawal from friends, family, and community college. At a particular breaking point,
he explains, “So I click open an empty document and I just start writing what is going on
in my head. As I am writing, the panic starts ebbing, and I keep writing and it keeps
ebbing. It starts going away, and I start feeling better just looking at these words . . . the
words made life concrete and eventually the panic just disappeared” (Kleiner, “Finding
writing through panic attacks”). Kleiner’s writing becomes a way to vocalize the voices
inside of his head. He writes a 72-page memoir, which becomes the catalyst that leads
him back to school and into creative writing. It is interesting that the very disease that
takes him out of school eventually leads him back to education. His anxiety, which many
would justifiably categorize as an inhibitor of his literacy, sparks a desperation to be
understood by others, which leads to writing.
Although Kleiner never directs says so, his definition of literacy and literacy
sponsorship changes. Literacy evolves from an impersonal experience that involves
writing and reading, to a highly individualistic moment when writing becomes personal,
challenging, and healing. To Kleiner, as well as another DALN narrative from a single
mother receiving her GED (Austin, “Stacy’s Story”), literacy is defined by its power to
shape lives and alter circumstances. No matter the highly personalized literacy events,
which range, in these cases, from receiving high school level education to them moment
when words become personal and expressive, literacy possesses the ability to overcome
Brown 3
negative aspects of life. Kleiners’ words begin to set him free from his disease, which is
why he tells this story as his literacy narrative. Furthermore, Kleiner’s definition of
literacy sponsorship advances from external aids, to anything that sparks the fire to write
within. According to Deborah Brandt and Katie Clinton, sponsors are “underwriters of
acts of reading and writing” who open the doors of literacy and encourage literary
practices (Brandt and Clinton, 1332). It’s certainly strange to think of a mental handicap
as a sponsor of literacy, but in Kleiner’s case his anxiety certainly opens the doors of
literacy. Whether this counteracts the hundreds of other stories where mental capacity
and handicap abate the continuation of literacy and the motivation to overcome literacy
roadblocks is yet to be determined. Kleiner’s story merely proves the indefinibility of
literacy and literacy events.
Moving from thinking of literacy as an individualistic practice molded by the
psyche rather than society, I will introduce Keith Dorwick. Dorwick is a homosexual man
whose literary narrative centers around an experience as a youth being called a fag: “I
kind of was feeling pretty liberated . . . I started to think, Oh my God, I am not the only
one . . . That was the first act that I consider myself as a rhetorician because it’s the first
time I thought of language in that way – not as something solid where this word means
that word but I thought of what the language means and what the implications were”
(Dorwick, “Getting Called a Fag”). It’s interesting that Dorwick combines social
experience and psychological interpretation of that experience to define literacy and
literary sponsors. This is particularly revealing when arguing the social constructiveness
of literacy. If literacy is socially constructed, as Dorwick seems to believe, then negative
social constructs do not always produce negative literacy experiences. It depends on a
Brown 4
person’s interpretation of the circumstance. Additionally, his literacy narrative does not
involve reading and writing, but the power of words and rhetoric. Similar to Kleiner,
Dorwick’s seemingly detrimental experience of being called a derogatory term leads to
an inner awakening and freedom. The word “fag” implicates that there are other
homosexuals that make up this group, and naming him as part of this group gives him the
freedom to explore and discover himself and the gay community. My literacy definition
thus expands to reading, writing, and naming, whose social constructs can be positively
or negatively interpreted.
Oddly enough, Dorwick’s literacy sponsors are the name-callers. The boys who
call him “fag” open the door for this teenager to explore suppressed feelings, and realize
the existence of others who shared this degrading label. Similar to Kleiner’s disease,
these seemingly inhibitors of literacy (name-callers) cause Dorwick to discover himself
and, later in life, define literacy. While their definitions of literacy differ, the idea that
presumable obstacles of literacy transform into literary sponsors tie these two narratives
together as stories of gaining control through literacy. Again, the naysayers might argue
that these examples are the exception, not the rule. This might be true, but I am simply
providing evidence for the complexity of the social constructiveness and definitions of
literacy.
The third literacy narrative further complicates the definition of literacy
sponsorship. Ambrea Brimmage grew up sleeping on the kitchen floor with the oven
open in order to stay warm. She says, “What drew me to writing was the fact that through
all the hardships and things that we’ve been through, through all the struggling . . . I
found the place in my house, which is the closet, and I would just start writing down my
Brown 5
feelings and how I felt because I had nobody to talk to” (Brimmage, “How I’ve Made It
Through”). Her definition of literacy as an act of expressing circumstances through
writing is similar to Kleiner; however, Kleiner expresses the hardships of his internal
circumstances, while Brimmage expresses the hardships of her external circumstances.
Like Dorwick, her literacy is constructed from her interpretation of the social anxieties
surrounding her family, and her motivation to overcome these circumstances through
literacy.
Brimmage’s so-called literacy inhibitors – single parent home, lack of
education in the house, poverty, and loneliness – result in her resolve to begin writing.
After years of letting these circumstances keep her from educational involvement, and
refusing to make an effort in school, these devastating circumstances become an outlet to
express her emotions. This showcases the changing nature of sponsorship. Brimmage’s
hardships lead her to writing, but shortly thereafter she becomes her own literacy
sponsor. She continues her writing past the initial expression of emotion, and begins to
pursue speech and debate, poetry club, and other literacy events. This is enlightening as a
circumstance or person can, throughout one’s literacy journey, be both an inhibitor and
sponsor of literacy. Also, Brimmage begins to see literacy in an individuastic light, rather
than a product of her social situation, which, I believe, allows her to break free from the
literacy myth. This transition from viewing literacy as socially defined to individually
defined is important when viewing literacy as a means to control circumstances. To what
extent is literacy a social construct when the individual uses literacy to break free from
social situations? Does this support the argument of socially constructed literacy or
further define literacy as a highly individual process? Or is it a little bit of both…
Brown 6
Continuing this idea of control, the final literacy narrative I will explore is
extremely revealing as to the fluidity of literacy constructs, and involves a woman who
grows up in poverty and delinquency. This anonymous speaker refers to her hometown
community as averaging a ninth grade education level, and littered with drug abuse, teen
pregnancies, prostitution, and crime. According to her literacy narrative, she manages to
escape this rapidly approaching lifestyle through the encouragement of a professor: “He
worked on my grammar, and he worked on my composition, and he worked on my
sentence structure, and he made me feel as if I had some value, and there was something
other than my vagina, and my ovaries, and my uterus, and my ability to procreate – that I
could actually some day not live in a roach-infested tenement . . . that was the beginning
of learning that I can control my position in the world by manipulating words in order to
gain control of my situation” (Anonymous, “Me saved from…”). She talks further of her
early writing as an outlet to define the world around her. The more she writes about death
and crime, the greater control she seems to have on these areas of her life. Her definition
of literacy seems to encapsulate grammar, sentence structure, and composition, and like
the previous examples, she discovers literacy by breaking away from her circumstances.
Literacy is a means to express the world around her, which finally gives her control over
her circumstances. Literacy becomes an agent of change, and my definition expands to
the act of naming, reading, writing, usage, expression of internal and external
circumstances, and a catalyst for social change.
This change is not possible without the sponsorship of her professor. I find it
illuminating that this traditional-seeming sponsor does not force her to change her social
practices or discourage her from violent writing, but finds merit in her thought processes
Brown 7
and ideas, and works mainly on error correction. This acceptance of her inner-expression
gives her confidence as a writer and a person, and the grammatical suggestions only serve
to bolster her tenacity for writing. Mina Shaughnessy would be aghast! This accents the
elasticity of literacy sponsorship, and the variety of literary sponsors that can exist. One
man’s inhibitor might be another man’s sponsor. One man’s literacy might be socially
constructed, while another seems to defy social constructs. Knowing these things, how
can we definitively define literacy? And if we cannot define literacy, how can we bridge
the gap of literacy abilities and motivations?
It is interesting to note another DALN narrative from a woman 60 days sober
and irritated that she can not conjure up the written creativity that occurs when inebriated.
Her literacy sponsor is not defined by bucking a potential literacy inhibitors and
producing change, but the act of drinking to excess, which, she believes, is the only outlet
for her creativity (Anonymous, “I am A Creative Being”). This is particularly interesting
when looking at the constructs of literacy. This woman defines literacy as something that
just happens, and usually in the midst of pain. So does pain construct literacy or
characterize a good literary sponsor? Many of the aforementioned narratives showcase
the power writing has to express and abate painful circumstances. But for each of these
stories there are dozens of others to the contrary. Mine, for example…
I grew up with very traditional literacy sponsors. I have parents that stress
education within the home and teachers that concretely aid in my educational growth
within the classroom. Additionally, I received private education and grew up in a fairly
elevated socio economic community. These positive influences are quickly shoved to
background as the influences of drinking and guys come to the foreground. My story
Brown 8
might not be as severe as those seen above, but these social anxieties cause me to lose all
confidence in my writing, motivation to perform well, and result in the inability to
express myself without social pressure. The voice of the inhibitors outweighs that of the
sponsors. My motivation for change is not my resolve to break through any socially
constructed barriers or express my inner anguish, but my desire for good grades. My
narrative further complicates the task of defining literacy, and poses the question of
whether literacy should be labeled as a socially constructed practice. And, if so, is there
any consistency to defining positive social constructs?
To understand the blurred lines between sponsors and inhibitors of literacy is to
understand the very nature of literacy. I have come to realize that literacy is
individualistily defined. It does not exist outside of a person’s experience, as sponsors
and inhibitors do not exist outside of a person’s experience. Alcohol might be a sponsor
to one and an inhibitor to another; therefore, it cannot be concretely labeled as one or the
other without the individual context. Literacy is the same. I have found that it is not a
socially constructed or definable variable, but a product of human experience. The
implications of this exceed scholarly research. As a future teacher, I will not be quick to
label a child’s level of literacy, or make assumptions of their literary circumstances. I
agree with Brandt and Clinton that we must recognize literacy’s value, but I also see
merit in James Gee’s argument that this value does not exist outside of human
interactions with literacy: “[R]eading and writing only make sense when studied in the
context of social and cultural practices of which they are but a part” (Gee 1293). The
crucial question Gee does not pose is what makes up a social or cultural practice? In
participating in eight DALN narratives, I found eight different facets of literacy and even
Brown 9
more characterizations of contributors and oppressors of literacy. Social and cultural
practices are made up of an individual’s experience with and reaction to the practice, and
until the academic community recognizes literacy as highly individualistic, they will be
an inhibitor of literacy. Critics will argue the need for a definition of literacy in order to
properly treat the gaps in education among students, as well as the need to define various
roadblocks to literacy. These gaps do exist, but defining literacy in a way that properly
labels students contradicts the fact that literacy experiences, much like other life
experiences, are highly personal and must be addressed as such. The question then
becomes, as with many other issues in this course, how to talk about, define, aid, and
remediate literacy problems if each case is unique?!
Brown 10
Works Cited
Anonymous. Being Bilingual in America [Video file]. Digital Archives of Literacy
Narrative, 22 Apr. 2009. http://daln.osu.edu/handle/2374.DALN/1405.
3 Nov. 2010.
Anonymous. I am A Creative Being [Video file]. Digital Archives of Literacy Narratives,
30 Sept. 2009. http://daln.osu.edu/handle/2374.DALN/728. 14 Nov. 2010.
Anonymous. Me saved from…[Video file]. Digital Archives of Literacy Narratives,
22 Sept. 2009. http://daln.osu.edu/handle/2374.DALN/826. 14 Nov. 2010.
Austin, Stacy. Stacy’s Story [Video file]. Digital Archives of Literacy Narratives,
9 Dec. 2009. http://daln.osu.edu/handle/2374.DALN/873. 3 Nov. 2010.
Brandt, Deborah and Katie Clinton. “Limits of the Local: Expanding Perspectives on
Literacy as a Social Practice.” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. 2009:
1321-1338.
Brimmage, Ambrea. How I’ve Made it Through [Video file]. Digital Archives of Literacy
Narratives, 22 Apr. 2009. http://daln.osu.edu/handle/2374.DALN/343. 3 Nov.
2010.
Dorwick, Keith. Getting Called Fag [Video file]. Digital Archives of Literacy Narratives,
14, March 2009. http://daln.osu.edu/handle/2374.DALN/234. 3 Nov. 2010.
Gee, James Paul. “The New Literacy Studies and the ‘Social Turn’.” The Norton Book of
Composition Studies. 2009:1293-1310.
Kleiner, Bryan. Finding writing through panic attacks [Video file]. Digital Archives of
Literacy Narratives, 23 Feb. 2010. http://daln.osu.edu/handle/2374.DALN/1123.
10 Nov. 2010.
Brown 11
Mays, Channelle. Literacy in Color: Channelle [Video file]. Digital Archives of Literacy
Narratives, 10 July 2008. http://daln.osu.edu/handle/2374.DALN/51. 8 Nov.
2010.
Webb-Sunderhaus, Sara. “A Family Affair: Competing Sponsors of Literacy in
Appalachian Students’ Lives.” Community Literacy Journal 2 (1). (Fall 2007):
5-24.