Reading Log 1
“At the time I guess I got a little more interested in the state of things within the state. I started to get a little political at that time and got a little more information about local people,” (http://www.jstor.org/stable/358929).
I choose this quote because I found the shared experiences of others an important component in learning. By listening to others speak about their personal experiences, I can learn to hear and think about their experiences and pick apart what the times were like and what the economical pressures were like. One can also begin to analyze life and how the overflowing of information from the affluent seems to over pour with no conscious intent onto the employees, or workers of the environment.
The passage also tells the reader a little more about the personal aspect of the worker and how important leadership plays a role into one’s development; Sponsors have a large involvement in the level of engagement to increase or decrease the learning of literacy. And it especially shows while reading the shared experiences.
“This analysis of sponsorship forces us to consider not merely how ones social group’s literacy practices may differ from another’s, but how everybody’s literacy practices are operating in differential economies, which supply different access routes, different degrees of sponsoring power, and different scales of monetary worth to the practices in use,”(http://www.jstor.org/stable/358929).
The analysis Brandt is talking about are the sponsors that one may encounter professionally, under her written accounts. Not only that but she finds that there are a diverse amount of backgrounds among individuals and the amount of resources available vary, and in an end result the career paths then vary. It shows that, although limited or unlimited of resources, or in this case sponsors, the end results, though varied are two completely separate paths.
“In whatever form, sponsors deliver the ideological freight that must be borne for access to what they have. Of course, the sponsored can be oblivious to or innovative with this ideological burden,”(http://www.jstor.org/stable/358929).
The recipient may be blind or aware of the valuable information that is presented to him or her. And what the individual chooses to do with that information will impact his or her outcome. While the sponsor has the power to reveal certain pieces of information or omit it. Does the sponsor want the other person to self improve? Or does the sponsor accidentally reveal important information? Or does the sponsor feel a duty being in higher power to be the teacher and conduct an informal ethical placement of teaching?
“Rather, these skills existed fragilely, contingently within an econonmic moment,” (http://www.jstor.org/stable/358929).
The way the economy is structured has an impact on literacy levels. As the economy changes so does the job market in which depicts the amount of literacy necessary for higher paying careers. So as long as higher paying careers are in demand, the likelihood that individuals will educate themselves to fill those positions, is higher. Which also ties into political structure which in the United States just so happens to be capitalism. Capitalism has a major impact in literacy because it motivates “the next best thing.”
Deborah Brandt is a reputable writer. Her article is published by the National Council of Teachers of English. The issue that is discussed is the relationship and (data collected) between sponsors and those learning from their sponsor (the recipient of the information, usually an employee, etc.) The factors that we should consider are how sponsorship guides the grounds for literacy and how it shapes the learner. For the reader, Brandt offers a variety of documented insights and explains in detail each portion of the observer’s experience and how that forms literacy into a marginalized or less marginalized category. Another words, how sponsors increase or decrease the dissemination or drive of literacy learning among learners.
The major claim is that literacy is learned and built upon the motivation of sponsors. This an agreeable argument, as most literacy is taught through sponsors. Whether a sponsor is physically there to teach or to teach through composition, literacy can be founded and given credit to by sponsors. The evidence that she offers are real encounters and experiences of individuals who were strongly motivated by their sponsors. She gives insight into different backgrounds and cultures and elaborates how their intrinsic drive to learn literacy often times brought them to very high roads of successes. She motivates the reader by giving real life insight which adds liveliness and accountability to her claims. In other words by offering real life experiences and insights it strongly backs up her argument by offering some evidence.
The counterargument she offers economic, political and education as the supporters
of learning literacy.
She gives credit to sponsors however does not deny the other forms of intake. She delves further into the economic and political drives that empower literacy however she does not bring forth supporting factors regarding education. In some instances she does, as one counterpart had attended University for accounting but she does not go into the structure and impact education has through literacy. Brandt does this purposefully so that way she can focus on her main topic. She develops her ideas through a very structured and concise format. Initially she begins her introduction explaining her argument. She gives definitions, examples, and elaborates into her ideas. Then further on she gives her support, which are the shared experiences from the learners and what they had learned from their sponsors.
As she has a very strong writing format she follows she also has rhetorical components in her writing. In regards to ethos, specifically she has a responsibility to share her thought process into her findings. In an implicit way, she has discovered new knowledge and is more than happy to enlighten the reader in her findings. This I feel definitely reaches out to the reader on an ethos level. In her style of writing she builds credibility and rupport with the reader but at the same time is offering crucial information herself, as a writer. This hints a little about the character of Brandt in which establishes an ethical and fair grounds from the author.
In regards to logos, Brandt is definitely right there with her logic. Meaning she is very intelligent in the way she expresses her ideas, she is very fair, and she knows what she is communicating about. She does not leave the reader lost, but yet very concisely explains bit by bit as her writing moves forward. The logos appeal in her writing has a lot to do with the knowledge that she offers in her writing. She gives insight and historical context to the twentieth century and then explores more information in detail from there. Her logic in her writing is to not force the information down the reader’s throat, but to offer plenty of valid examples and then backs them up with evidence, the real life experiences that are documented.
Brandt offers a lot of information on the basis of pathos. She does this because she becomes personal with the reader. When she writes one can sense the passion in her writing. And the topic in itself is a very emotional topic. It goes back to a nostalgic feeling when one looks back and reflects on his or her initial training in literacy, through sponsorship. In a way Brandt is trying to affect the reader through emotions. Emotions in a way do conflict with logic however since she offers information on not just only a pathos approach it is easy to believe her in her writing based off of both. An example of irony in her writing are the experiences in which learners come from completely different walks in life and she says that they end up both accomplishing the same thing. When she says this is she referring to meeting one’s goals? This is the instance in which she leaves irony for the reader which is very effective and up for interpretation.
The most difficult part of reading the article was the introduction. I found it very useful and interesting but she drew me in and I kept wanting to read more. Another aspect was the vocabulary. At times she referred to war, and I would have to look up a word or two every once in a while to resolve the discrepancy. This will strategy will definitely help for the future as it is key to understanding what is going on in the context. The article did not change my views because a lot of it I agreed with and felt familiar with. I agreed with her argument because I can reflect back on my sponsors and how they helped me with literacy. The most influential parts in her writing is her support (her real life experiences documented by others) . Not only is it effective but it is also interesting to listen about. Another piece I would like to add is about the economical component in which I forgot to mention entirely. The invisible hand that plays a role into all of this is the economic structure in which Brandt is implicitly giving credit to throughout the entire article. Thank you for pointing that out during lecture.
Alex Haley and Brandt :
While reading about Malcom X and his discovery into increasing the drive of his own literacy one can say that Malcom was his own sponsor and that some of his friends either through networking or family, also make in impact into his developmental stages. First, moreover Malcom talks about his letter that he is trying to write to Elijah Muhammad. He is extremely honest with the reader and himself that he did not even know how to without using slang. Another contributing factor was a friend of his Bimbi (prison-mate), he felt jealous that Bimbi was articulate and he was not. Malcom began his literacy through reading and writing out definitions from a dictionary. He only sought out to do this because he sensed his own inadequacy in literacy, therefore one could say that he is his own sponsor.
In reading the article written by Sherman Alexie, one learns about his sponsor of literacy. His first sponsor was a book, a comic actually of DC Comics, Batman. He admits that he cannot remember much about which comic it was or what the content was but that he had remembered it as reminder to learn to read. Throughout his life his father is also an indirect sponsor. His father passively sponsors his son by bringing home books to his son. Sherman Alexie speaks of his native background in which he observes that reading is not valued in his own culture. As soon as he comes to this finding he decides that he is going to step outside of the norm and better his literacy so that way he can better his future. He accomplishes this by reading everything that he can get his hands on (as does Malcom X from the previous reading) and he then throughout his adult life teaches literacy to other indians. Although Sherman is also his own teacher throughout his life, his initial remembrance to read stems from a Batman comic.
Donald Murray is different in his writing in comparison to Malcom X and Sherman Alexie. Murray is sixty when he is writing and his direction has a different motive. In his writings he himself is the sponsor rather than focusing on who his sponsors are. He finds various reasons for writing but he admits that all writing is autobiographical. He proves this by writing about different events in his life, giving a narrative to the reader about parts of his past. He also selectives specific poems for the reader to reflect on in order to dissect the personal narrative perspective, the autobiographical component.
In reading the poems, the author always explains what he or she is saying. It does not mean that the perspective is inaccurate, but does suggest that it is indeed autobiographical. He doesn’t particularly view himself as his own sponsor yet views others around him that motivate him as sponsors. He says Harry, a friend that died, teaches him to appreciate life and to appreciate that he is still alive. I believe that the author is suggesting is that sponsors are an ongoing process, your learning never ends if you allow yourself to learn.
