New Literacy Studies 관련

– 리터러시를 문자미디어 자체에 가두는 것 반대
– 리터러시와 문화, 권력구조를 연결해서 파악
– 다양한 맥락에 대한 민감성 강조
– 리터러시를 단일한 개념으로 ‘말끔하게’ 파악하는 것 비판
– 리터러시의 역사성을 강조
– ‘리터러시는 이것이다’라는 선험적 정의를 경계하며, 사회문화적 맥락 속에서 리터러시 행위에 참여하는 사람들의 협상의 결과로 드러나는 리터러시 강조

–> 현재 하고 있는 작업에 많은 영감을 주는 관점입니다. 하지만 한국사회에서 이 관점이 어떻게 유효할 수 있을지에 대해서는 좀더 고민해 보아야 할 듯합니다.

“In contrast, Street recommended what he called the “ideological model,” which “view[s] literacy practices as inextricably linked to cultural and power structures in society, and recognize[s] the variety of cultural practices associated with reading and writing in different contexts” (Street, 1993: 7). This ethnographically informed perspective, which many have come to call New Literacy Studies (NLS), problematizes singular definitions of “literacy,” emphasizing the historicity (Freebody, 2005) and multiplicity of literacies and of literacy practices, or “the socially regulated, recurrent, and patterned things that people do with literacy as well as the cultural significance they ascribe to those doings” (Brandt and Clinton, 2002: 342); such practices vary by language, script, domain, role, network, participants, context, and other factors (Barton and Hamilton, 2000; Baynham, 1995; Cope and Kalantzis, 2000; New London Group, 1996). From this analytical perspective, literacy cannot and should not be defined a priori, as it is by most conventional measures of literacy; instead, what counts as literacy results from complex sociocultural negotiations (Hamilton and Barton, 2000).”

출처: A Companion to the Anthropology of Education

 

#삶을위한리터러시

Leave a Reply