Borderland

Way, way back in December I followed up on Tom Hoffman’s recommendation and found a copy of Robert Scholes’ Textual Power: Literary Theory and the Teaching of English. Since it’s due back at the library now, I want to mention it here before I return it.

The book opened with Scholes’ recommendation for a new focus in English education, but after the first few chapters Scholes moved into theoretical issues justifying his argument. There’s nothing wrong with theory, and I understand why he did it. “There’s always a theory in place,” he says, “…the job of any teacher of criticism is to bring the assumptions that are in place out in the open for scrutiny (p. xi).” But as I tried to follow the intricacies of the thinking coming from different schools of thought, I got lost in all the labels, and eventually decided that I’d need more background knowledge on the topic of literary theory. The book was written in 1985, and I read it as a theoretical forerunner for what we now know as critical literacy. For what it’s worth, part of what Scholes was talking about is covered in Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler, but in textbook fashion, and it’s a bit easier to follow – but still not simple.

Why any of this matters is that Scholes has something important to say about reading comprehension and instruction. He explains that we can make the study of English about “how texts are used to perform work in the world” (which he calls “secular” reading) or we can teach “literature” as a purely academic (“hermetic”) subject . Instead of teaching Literature, he suggests that we should be teaching Textuality.

In an age of manipulation, when our students are in dire need of critical strength to resist the continuing assaults of all the media, the worst thing we can do is to foster in them an attitude of reverence before texts. The reverential attitude, a legacy of romantic aestheticism, is the one most natural in literary interpretation as we have practiced it….what is needed is a judicious attitude:scrupulous to understand, alert to probe for blind spots and hidden agendas, and, finally, critical, questioning, skeptical.

[...]

The essential change – the one that will enable all the others – must be a change in the way that we define our task. To put it as directly, and perhaps as brutally, as possible, we must stop “teaching literature” and start “studying texts.”

Scholes is not talking about just verbal texts, either. He sees worthwhile opportunity for critical study in visual texts, as well. Institutional practices are also on his radar.

Since reading proficiency and comprehension are now popularly regarded as quantifiable constructs, our approach to textual studies in school invites scrutiny from many angles. The relationship of texts to the world and to the reader is at the heart of what it means to read and to be a reader. Critical literacy legitimizes different “readings” and challenges the idea that there is a single correct meaning for any text, a necessary assumption behind most discussions about reading proficiency. ‘Comprehension’ is a very big word. When you begin thinking about how meaning is made, and how we determine which meanings are preferred, you’ve a entered a philosophical labyrinth. A good introduction to some of the problems may be found in Comparing the Traditions, Perspectives, and Educational Goals of Critical Reading from Reading Online.

Scholes’ practical chapters walk us through an example of his vision. He has a simple framework that includes three basic competencies that he sees as intertwined, but distinct enough from each other to discuss individually. These he calls reading, interpretation, and criticism. I especially like the intertextual schema he uses for his model. A brief description of each strand:

Reading
Scholes sees reading as the production of text within text. It’s the largely unconscious process we use to access the author’s message. While reading, we engage the generic and cultural codes used by the author. Vocabulary knowledge, discussion, description, and background knowledge all contribute to a reader’s ability to construct a text by entering the author’s world.

Interpretation
Interpretation is the production of text upon text, and Scholes see this activity as dependent upon breakdowns in communication. When we perceive a message as somehow incomplete, we employ “fix-up” strategies to help us make sense. Scholes notes that we’re motivated toward interpretive activity by “either some excess of meaning in a text or of some deficiency of knowledge in the reader (p. 22).” The impulse to understand, to look for meaning, is basic to literary analysis.

Criticism
The production of text against text happens when we believe that a work has not lived up to its intended purpose. Criticism springs from an interest that is not just simply personal, but which is rooted in particular social texts with which a reader/critic may feel a close affinity. Scholes observes that criticism is in some ways the reverse of interpretation, since it comes about when the reader brings an “excess” of meaning to the text, and the text is judged somehow deficient.

Where do students find their critical voice? We need to avoid producing “readings” for students, and instead provide them with the tools they need to produce their own. We can do that by helping them to identify issues they care about, and encourage them to speak on behalf of some larger class or group. Debates and discussions that explore various questions that lie outside the text itself can promote critical thought and (we may hope) study.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, critical reading isn’t a teaching method. It’s a stance that a reader takes toward a text. Curriculum is a text. School is a text. The “Teacher” is a text, as is the classroom. These, too, can be open to interrogation, and they probably need to be if we expect any of this other stuff to happen. For anyone who sees critical literacy as maybe something *just* for older students, you might want to check out the Critical Literacy Podcast, and Vivian Vazquez’s book, for some ideas.