ANTH 306: Anthropological Perspectives on Literacies
Fall 2008
Tues-Thurs 3:00-4:20, Room: King 323
Erika Hoffmann
Office: Rice 230
Office Hours: Tues-Thurs 1:00-3:00
Email: Erika.Hoffmann@oberlin.edu
This class argues that literacies must be understood in the socio-cultural and historical
contexts in which they are used, as we examine the ways in which they are linked to
social relationships, technologies, talk, and actions. We will explore textual practices ranging from love letters to lists, sacred texts to legal documents, poems to school
readers – drawn from many different geographical, cultural, and historical settings. In
particular, we will address questions of authority and dominance, through an
exploration of the role of literacy, nationalism, and education in class stratification and
the formation of gender, racial, and ethnic identities. We will also consider the
significance of emerging and alternative literacies.
Required Texts:
Ahearn, Laura M. 2001. Invitations to Love: Literacy, Love Letters, and Social Change in
Nepal. University of Michigan Press.
Collins, James, and Richard K. Blot. 2003. Literacy and Literacies: Texts, Power, and Identity.
Cambridge University Press.
Silverstein, Michael, and Greg Urban. 1996. Natural Histories of Discourse. University of
Chicago Press.
Recommended Texts:
Ahmad, Dohra. 2007. Rotten English: A Literary Anthology. W. W. Norton.
Additional required readings will be posted on Blackboard.
Course Requirements:
Attendance and Participation (10%): This is a small course in which attendance and
participation is vital. Students must be prepared to discuss the assigned material for
each class session.
Discussion questions (10%): Four times during the term (twice before the mid point and
twice afterwards) students must submit a 1 page document that reflects on the week’s
readings and raises questions for discussion. These must be posted to the Blackboard
discussion thread by 5 pm on the Monday preceding that week’s meetings. The ideas
you share will benefit the group by identifying interesting topics for discussion and will
benefit you by allowing you to mull over the topics you find most compelling. You will
also be helping me understand what topics you find interesting, confusing, or would
like to learn more about. In addition, there will be space on our course Blackboard site
for student-initiated discussions of issues relevant to our course. If you have thoughts or
questions that you weren’t able to raise in class, consider posting them there for us all to
engage with!
Assignment 1 (20%): This project asks you to explore the differences between spoken
and written communication in your cultural context. You will be asked to record and
transcribe natural speech and compare its formal features with a written document
produced by the same individual(s). Then, in a 5 -page paper, analyze the role of context
in shaping the differences between spoken and written language. How do the formal
properties of language shift in the creation of a text that can be consumed outside of the
context of its production? To what do you attribute the differences you find? You will
also be asked to reflect on the process of creating your transcript – what challenges did
you face in attempting to faithfully represent spoken language in writing? What causes
these challenges? Due in class, 9/25.
Assignment 2 (30%): Heath defines a literacy event as “any action sequence involving
one or more persons, in which the production and or consumption of print plays a role”
(Heath 1983:386). In an 8-10-page paper compare three such events: one drawn from
your life, one from the Ahearn ethnography, and one from any other class source.
Analyze each event following the WRITING model described by Perri (2001). How do
these “micro” literacy activities reflect the larger social structures in which are
embedded? What commonalities and differences do you find between these three kinds
of literacies? Due in class, 10/30.
Assignment 3 (30%): This class argues that literacy is not a neutral, autonomous
technology. But while literacy itself does not have the “agentive force to change
societies” (Schieffelin and Doucet 1998:299), literacy events, as ideologically grounded in
particular social structures, can play an important role in social transformations.
Throughout much of the class we have examined the ways in which literacy can be a
tool of social domination, but in this 8-10 page paper I ask you to consider the ways in
which an anthropologically grounded understanding of literacy can be harnessed by
those who would use it as a tool for social justice. Identify and describe a particular case
in which literacy is used against authority and critique its efforts OR write a proposal
outlining a plan according to which literacy could transform rather than reproduce a
particular social order. NOTE - you may choose to write this paper in a manner that
diverges from the institutionally defined term paper genre. If you do so, be sure to
analyze the choices you make in so doing. Also you may have to provide me with a key
for interpreting the paper if I will not have the cultural background to understand the
language/conventions that you follow/create.
Due in class 12/9.
Be prepared to present and discuss your work in a final roundtable discussion in which
we compare findings. You will each be responsible for submitting a final discussion
question that is raised by this project by 12/8.
Miscellaneous: All assignments, unless otherwise noted, should be typed and doublespaced with regular 1-inch margins and must adhere to the stated length requirements.
Extensions will be granted only under extraordinary circumstances. Late assignments
will be graded down 1/3 of 1 letter grade every 24 hours after the due date. No
assignments will be accepted more than 1 week late.
The Honor Code: At the end of each graded assignment, including the discussion
questions, you are required to write and sign the Oberlin honor pledge: “I affirm that I
have adhered to the Honor Code in this assignment”. For more information about the
Honor System please see: www.oberlin.edu/students.links-life/rules-regs.html.
Students with Disabilities should be sure to see me at the start of the semester so that I
can arrange any necessary accommodations.
Class Schedule:
Week 1 (9/2-9/4): Introduction; Autonomous versus ideological models of literac(ies)
Does alphabetic literacy have a monolithic power to transform the cognitive and social
lives of peoples? Or is there a wide range of literacy practices that affect (and are
affected by) individuals and societies in different ways?
Readings:
Collins and Blot: Chapter 1
Besneir, Niko. 2001. “Literacy” in Key Terms in Language and Culture, ed. A.Duranti.
Oxford.Blackwell Publishers. 136-138.
Ahearn: PART ONE
Week 2 (9/9-9/11): The emergence of literacy; technologies of inscription
When did writing emerge? What is the range of types of scripts? How do different
inscription styles affect the uses of writing and its relation to speech?
Readings:
Boone, Elizabeth H. 1994. “Writing and recording knowledge,” in Writing Without
Words: Alternative Literacies in Mesoamerica and the Andes. Eds. Elizabeth H. Boone
and Walter D. Mignolo. Durham NC: Duke U Press. Pp. 3-26.
Perri, Antonio. 2001. “Writing” in Key Terms in Language and Culture, ed. A.Duranti.
Oxford.Blackwell Publishers. 272-274.
Coe, Michael and Mark Van Stone 2001. “The cultural background of Maya writing”
and “The nature of the Maya script,” chs. 1 and 2 in Coe & Van Stone, Reading the
Maya Glyphs. London: Thames & Hudson. Pp. 7-36.
Keith H. Basso and Ned Anderson 1973. 'A Western Apache writing system: The
symbols of Silas John', Science 180:1013-1022
Week 3 (9/16-9/18): The Written and the Oral: A great divide?
Is this a simple dichotomy? How does spoken and written language differ?
Readings:
Rumsey, Alan. 2001. “Orality” in Key Terms in Language and Culture, ed. A.Duranti.
Oxford.Blackwell Publishers. 165-167.
Collins and Blot, Chapters 2 and 3 (skim)
Haviland, John. 1996. “Text from talk in Tzotzil,” in Natural Histories of Discourse, ed. M.
Silverstein and G. Urban. Chicago IL: U Chicago Press. Pp. 45-78.
Supplementary: Chafe, W and Deborah Tannen. 1987. The Relation between Written and Spoken
Language. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 16. pp. 383-407.
Week 4 (9/23-9/25): Reading, Writing, and Relationships
Is reading and writing an individual or social activity? How do textual practices reflect
and create social relations?
Readings:
Long, Elizabeth. 1993. “Textual interpretation as collective action,” in The Ethnography of
Reading, ed. J. Boyarim. Berkeley, University of California Press. 180-211
Ahearn part 2
Supplementary: Urban, Greg. 1996. “Entextualization, replication, and power” in Natural
Histories of Discourse. Ed. M. Silverstein andG. Urban. Chicago. University of Chicago
Press. 21-44.
Assignment 1 due in class 9/25! Be prepared to discuss your results.
Week 5 (9/30-10-2): Literacies and state formation
What is the role of print capitalism in the emergence of the nation-state? How is
language standardization implicated in the creation of imagined communities?
Readings:
Collins and Blot Chapter 4
Schieffelin, Bambi, and Rachelle Doucet 1998 “The ‘real’ Haitian Creole: Ideology,
metalinguistics, and orthographic choice,” in Language Ideologies, ed. B.
Schieffelin, K. Woolard, and P. Kroskrity. New York and Oxford: Oxford U Press.
Pp. 285-316.
Week 6 (10/7):): Schools and stratification
In what ways is schooled literacy implicated in the creation of social stratification and
social inequality?
Readings:
Collins, James. 1996 “Socialization to Text: Structure and contradiction in schooled
literacy” in Natural Histories of Discourse ed. M .Silverstein and G. Urban.
Chicago. University of Chigaco Press. 203-228.
Heath, Shirley Brice. 2001 “What no bedtime story means: narrative skills and home and
school” in Linguistic Anthropology: A reader ed. A. Duranti. Oxford. Blackwell
Publishing. 318-342.
Supplementary: Mehan, Hugh. 1996 “The construction of an LD student: A case study of the
politics of
representation” in Natural Histories of Discourse ed. M .Silverstein and G. Urban.
Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 253-276.
Week 7 (10/14-10/16): Social identity, narrative, and text
To what extent can self-identification be grounded in narrative genres derived from
literacy events?
Readings:
Collins and Blot Chapter 5
Crapanzano, Vincent. 1996 ‘‘Self’-centering narratives,” in Natural Histories of Discourse,
ed. M. Silverstein and G. Urban. Chicago IL: U Chicago Press. Pp. 106-127.
Behar, Ruth 1995“Rage and redemption: Reading the life story of a Mexican marketing
woman,” in The Dialogic Emergence of Culture, eds. Dennis Tedlock and Bruce
Mannheim. Urbana IL: U Illinois Press. Pp. 148-78.
Supplementary: Manelis Klein, Harriet. 1999 “Narrative.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology.
1999 (9) 1-2: 167-169.
Week 8 (10/28-10/30): Literacy events across contexts
How do literacy events differ in different situations? How do these practices reflect and
create the social structures in which they are embedded?
Readings:
Engelke, Matthew 2004 “Text and performance in an African church: The Book, ‘live and
direct.’”American Ethnologist 31:1,76-91.
Mertz, Elizabeth 1996 “Recontextualization as socialization: Text and pragmatics in the
law school classroom” in Natural Histories of Discourse ed. M .Silverstein and G.
Urban. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 229-254.
Noy, Chaim 2008 “Writing Ideology: Hybrid Symbols in a Commemorative Visitor Book
in Israel.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 18(1): 62–81.
Paper 2 due in class 10/30! Be prepared to discuss your results.
Week 9 (11/4-11/6): Literacy in colonialism, and neo-colonialism
What is the significance of global inequalities in terms of access to literacy practices?
What is the significance of the spread of certain kinds of literacies from one society to
another?
Readings:
Collins and Blot chapter 6
Blommaert, Jan. 2004 “Writing as a problem: African grassroots writing, economies of
literacy, and globalization” in Language in Society 33, 643–671.
Schieffelin, B. 2000. “Introducing Kaluli literacy: A chronology of influences”. Regimes of
Language. P. Kroskrity. Santa Fe, School of American Research Press: 293-328.
Week 10 (11/11-11-13): Literacy and Development
Ahearn part 3
Wright, Martha. 2001 “More than just chanting: multilingual literacies, ideologies and
teaching methodologies in rural Eritrea. In Literacy and Development: Ethnographic
Perspectives. Brian Street (ed). New York: Routledge. Pp. 61-77.
Robinson-Pandt, A. 2001 Women’s literacy and health: can an ethnographic researcher
find the links? In Literacy and Development: Ethnographic Perspectives. Brian Street
(ed). New York: Routledge. 152-170
Week 11 (11/18-11/20): Anthropological writing
Writing, through the production of fieldnotes, transcripts, articles, and ethnographies, is
one of anthropology’s most important tools. However, can anthropologists avoid
encoding asymmetries between researchers and subjects through its use?
Readings:
Clifford, James 1988 [1983] “On ethnographic authority,” in Clifford, The Predicament
of Culture. Cambridge MA: Harvard U Press. Pp. 21-54. First published 1983 in
Representations 1:118-46.
Clifford, James 1990 “Notes on (field)notes,” in Fieldnotes: The Makings of
Anthropology, ed. Roger Sanjek. Ithaca NY: Cornell U. Press. Pp. 47-70.
Sanjek, Roger 1990 “A vocabulary for fieldnotes,” in Fieldnotes: The Makings of
Anthropology, ed. Roger Sanjek. Ithaca NY: Cornell U. Press. Pp. 92-121.
Week 12 (11/25): Literacy and electronic media
To what extent are literacy practices changing in response to newly emerging
technologies?
Readings:
Crystal, David. 2001 “The language of e-mail,” in Language and the Internet. Cambridge:
Cambridge U. Press. pp. 94-128.
Sugimoto, Taku and James Levin. 2000 “Multiple literacies and multi-media: a
comparison o Japanese ad American uses of the Internet” in Global Literacies and
the World-Wide Web. London: Routledge. Pp. 133-153.
Romano, Susan, Barbara Field, and Elizabeth Huergo. 2000 “Web literacies of the
already assessed and technically inclined: schooling in Monterrey, Mexico” in
Global Literacies and the World-Wide Web. London: Routledge. Pp. 189-216.
Week 13 (12/2-12/4): Writing against power
Can literacy practices resist, change, and transform given power structures?
Readings:
Camitta, Miriam. 1993 “Vernacular writing: Varieties of literacy among Philadelphia
high school students,” in Cross-cultural Approaches to Literacy. Brian Street
(ed).Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Pp. 228-46.
Shuman, Amy. 1993 “Collaborative writing: Appropriating power or reproducing
authority?” Cross-cultural Approaches to Literacy. Brian Street (ed).Cambridge:
University of Cambridge Press. pp. 247-71.
Sarris, Greg. 1992 “Keeping Slug Woman alive,” in The Ethnography of
Reading Jonathan Boyarim (ed). Berkeley, University of California Press pp. 23869.
Week 14 (12/9-12/11): Concluding roundtable discussion of final papers