education discussion

education discussion

ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE PAPER NOW

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54(2) October 2010 doi:10.1598/JA AL.54.2.1 © 2010 International Reading Association (pp. 84 ???–???) –96) C O M M E N T A R Y Literate Arts in a Global World: Reframing Social Networking as Cosmopolitan Practice Glynda A. Hull | Amy Stornaiuolo G 84 aps, disconnects, and contradictions—these largely characterize the relationship between the digital, mobile, and radically interconnected social, economic, and cultural worlds that we increasingly inhabit, and the print-centric, stationary, traditional school day, still organized for the most part by tools, space–time relationships, and participant structures that belong to a previous age. On the one hand, social media have taken the digital world by storm, surpassing everyone’s imagination in terms of their rate of uptake, popularity, and viral spread, especially among youth and especially out of school (Beach, Hull, & O’Brien, in press; boyd, 2008; Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009; Ito et al., 2010; Lenhart, Arafeh, Smith, & Macgill, 2008). On the other hand, formal schooling has typically not kept time, being generally skeptical of the educational value of social media and especially alert to the risks of social networks and media sharing (cf. Lemke, Coughlin, Garcia, Reifsneider, & Baas, 2009; Livingstone & Brake, 2010; Sharples, Graber, Harrison, & Logan, 2009). Yet at this historical moment, locating points of entry for 21st-century tools and practices into formal as well as informal educational spaces seems tantamount to a moral imperative, with important implications for access and equity. Of course, all children and youth require 21st-century resources, tools, practices, and opportunities as well as powerful versions of literacy (cf. Collins & Halverson, 2009) to participate most agentively in their social and economic futures. In addition, as we will shortly explain, the rewards could not be greater, or the risk of failure more grave, for educating a citizenry able and willing to communicate with digital tools across differences in a radically interconnected yet divided world. Toward these ends, we join other educators and researchers who have recently attempted to explore, develop, and promote promising curricular practices around social media (e.g., Davidson & Goldberg, 2009; Erstad, Gilje, & de Lange, 2007; Greenhow & Robelia, 2009b; Lam, 2006; Lemke et al., 2009; cf. Beach, Anson, Breuch, & Swiss, 2009). Social Networking: Cosmopolitan Educational Practice Ours is a radically connected, interdependent, yet increasingly divided world, characterized by “cultural f lows” (Appadurai, 1996) of ideas and people— “goods, capital, technologies, people, knowledge, images, crime, beliefs, fashions and desires…across territorial boundaries” (Rizvi, 2009, p. 258). In such a world, particular skills, practices, and values around literacy and communication come to the fore, as images and audiences, with their increasingly circulatory movement, offer important resources for meaning making and “self-imagining” (Appadurai, 1996, p. 4). Especially important for negotiating a complex and dynamic world are capacities for creatively and adaptively making and sharing meanings across modes and media (Kress, 2005), for imagining others and for imagining others imagining us (Silverstone, 2007), for seeing ourselves as social actors with obligations toward others (Stevenson, 2003a), and for negotiating meaning and interpretations across divergent cultural, linguistic, geographic, and ideological landscapes both on- and off line (Hull & Nelson, 2009; The New London Group, 1996). In our view, these are quintessential 21st-century literacies, echoed also in the recent framework of the National Council of Teachers of English (2007) for curriculum and assessment, which asserts in part that 21st-century readers and writers must be able to “build relationships with others to pose and solve problems collaboratively and cross-culturally,” “design and share information for global communities to meet a variety of purposes,” and “attend to the ethical responsibilities required by these complex environments” (para. 3). Such 21st-century capacities for dialogue and the respectful imagining of others across aesthetic, cultural, historical, and ideological difference require educational scaffolding and positioning. They do not spring fully formed from mere exposure to social media, where, as research has already shown, social networks tend to function as extensions of existing off line relationships (e.g., boyd & Ellison, 2008), and where online communities tend to reproduce the race, class, and geographic divisions that exist off line (e.g., Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008). Thus, we see the need to reframe social networking as an educational practice and, more specifically, as a potential “cosmopolitan” educational practice. Rooted in classic and Enlightenment philosophy (Kleingeld & Brown, 2006) and characterized by metaphors of hospitality in which strangers, otherness, and justifiable difference are welcomed (Beck & Sznaider, 2006), cosmopolitanism has reemerged of late in fields such as philosophy, sociology, cultural studies, and media theory, a f lowering of interest referred to as a “cosmopolitan turn.” Rightly criticized previously for its Western, normative, elitist, and occasionally romantic orientations (cf. Ong, 2009), cosmopolitanism is now being reimagined as a strategy for reconciling the tensions inherent in a vastly interconnected yet deeply divided world, where we have “obligations that stretch beyond those to whom we are related by the ties of kith and kind, or even the more formal ties of a shared citizenship” (Appiah, 2006, p. xv). Such a redesigned cosmopolitanism juxtaposes and balances local commitments with broader arenas of concern, positioning us to negotiate shifting Literate Arts in a Global World: Reframing Social Networking as Cosmopolitan Practice In so doing, we seek a rapprochement between in-school and out-of-school social media practices and conceptualizations of literacy, believing that opportunities to engage with distant and global audiences via digital social networks should now be threaded throughout the curriculum, especially in English language arts. To theorize this project, we turn to cosmopolitanism, an old philosophy newly conceived, for its insights about difference and identity in a global world (e.g., Appiah, 2006; Hansen, 2010), and we draw as well from conceptualizations of a semiotic and aesthetic underpinning for literacy (e.g., Hull & Nelson, 2005; Kress, 2005; cf. Willis, 1990). To illustrate those 21st-century literate arts, habits of mind, and communicative exchanges that constitute cosmopolitan educational practice, we offer examples from research on the development of an international social networking site for youth called Space2Cre8 (www.space2cre8.com; see also Hull & Nelson [2009] and Hull, Stornaiuolo, & Sahni [2010]). Finally, we invite readers, in the spirit of de Certeau (1984), to join us in devising tactics for introducing new media tools into old educational spaces, hopefully with transformative potential. 85 October 2010 54(2) Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 86 relationships between self and other in everyday life (Hansen, 2010). Pull quote needed The need for respectful dialogue here and for the capacity to generously imagine others across aesthetic, cultural, historical, and ideological differences assumes particular importance if our aim is to position youth to envision themselves as social actors with responsibilities toward others and the world. (Although a focus on multiculturalism [e.g., Banks, 2004] and intercultural competence [cf. Thorne, 2003; Ware & Kramsch, 2005] has helped attune educators to issues of difference and diversity, these approaches primarily have addressed intranational differences between cultures within the nation-state or language learners’ willingness to engage linguistically across assumptions of difference. Cosmopolitanism helpfully broadens this focus on communication across difference to include global contexts inf luenced by cultural f lows of people and ideas facilitated by the digital. Although we do not have space to do justice to either of these literatures in this article, we acknowledge their importance in understanding communication across difference.) We suggest, then, that a reimagined cosmopolitanism might offer the field of literacy studies a starting place for including conceptions of local and global citizenship within its curricular and pedagogical purview, such as new spaces for building communities, including digital ones, and new kinds of civic engagements within those communities, ones that foreground communication and literate arts. Such arts, as we envision them, utilize multimodal symbolizations across multiple spaces—what might be called “transliteracies” (e.g., Hull & Nelson, 2009), foster youthful capacities to listen and ref lect (e.g., Hull et al., 2010; Lewis, Enciso, & Moje, 2007; Luce-Kapler, Sumara, & Iftody, 2010), encourage hospitable (cf. Silverstone, 2007) interaction across “legitimate difference” (Appiah, 2006, p. xv), and promote care for the self and others (Hansen, 2010). (The term transliteracies has recently begun to be used in literacy studies to signal the availability of a variety of modes, platforms, and tools for meaning making. Thomas et al. [2007], for example, define transliteracies as “the ability to read, write and interact across a range of platforms, tools and media” [para. 3]. Given our cosmopolitan orientation, we believe the term can be usefully extended to capture the construction, use, and movement of texts across communicative and geographical spaces as well as multiple platforms, tools, and media.) In conceptualizing the literate arts that might constitute cosmopolitan practice, we have found Hansen’s (2010) discussion of cosmopolitan philosophy helpful as an educational art of living: “how a person can learn, through formal tuition and its fusion with experience, to draw as fully as possible on prior human achievements and one’s own life encounters to craft a humane, meaningful life, even, or especially, when extant conventions seem to reject, thwart, or cheapen this project” (p. 8)—values not unfamiliar to the English classroom or a liberal arts curriculum. More particularly, Hansen explained how such a life project is both a “response to the demands of justice toward others and of the desire for self-improvement” (p. 8), or morality and ethics. Finally, he signaled the privileged place in this project of “deliberative ways of speaking, listening, interacting, reading, writing, and more” (p. 9), perceptive and critical capacities and practices that may be ignited by encounters with difference. We gloss Hansen’s account as “self work” and “other work” or those literate arts that instantiate, respectively, the ethical and moral dimensions of communicative practice. In our own previous work on digital storytelling (e.g., Hull & James, 2007; Hull & Katz, 2006; Hull, Kenney, Marple, & ForsmanSchneider, 2006; cf. Lambert, 2009; Lundby, 2008), our focus was often “self work,” as we attempted to position young people to tell, retell, and share pivotal narratives about self, family, and friends in local contexts, such as home, school, and community, developing, representing, and experiencing themselves as powerful storytellers, artists, and multimodal communicators. Our current projects, however, including Space2Cre8, more explicitly also orient young people toward “other work” and a moral disposition in relation to distant audiences and global as well as local communities—an orientation that we believe is as discrimination, school pressures, poverty, and the challenges of media representation. These online and off line activities, at once playful, designful, and filled with import, provide challenging occasions for youth to negotiate dimensions of personal identity and cultural knowledge in relation to one another and across time and space, using different languages, script systems, images, music, and other forms of multimodal communication. Although Space2Cre8 shares certain functionalities with sites such as Facebook, including the facility to create a profile and articulate a list of friends, it differs in several important respects, especially in being a closed network that privileges the development of online-only relationships. In contrast, social networking sites are typically used to display and maintain off line friendships (boyd & Ellison, 2008). In concert with theorizations of media as a moral sphere (Silverstone, 2007) and efforts on the part of educational organizations and teachers to use the Internet to encourage children to bridge linguistic, geographic, and cultural divides (e.g., Youth Voices [youthvoices. net], Taking IT Global [www.tigweb.org]), we have envisioned Space2Cre8 and the Kidnet project as opportunities to deploy social networking, not only to maintain current friendships but also to develop new relationships—ones that are cross-cultural, crossnational, and cross-linguistic—through communication and the creation and exchange of arts-based media artifacts. Kidnet and Space2Cre8 are at core, then, educational in intent, and the project is an effort to develop and explore the educational implications of social networks. We now turn to some examples of key activities and processes. The Ethics of Self-Representation One of the powerful affordances of social networking that researchers have repeatedly noted is the potential for self-presentation through multiple modes (e.g., boyd, 2008; Dowdall, 2009; Greenhow & Robelia, 2009a), as participants experiment with images, color, video, music, text, and articulations across modes to communicate with others about themselves. We have found that these presentations of self by youthful participants in the Space2Cre8 network represent serious self-work, as youth thoughtfully negotiate the desire Literate Arts in a Global World: Reframing Social Networking as Cosmopolitan Practice compatible both with the requirements of living in a global world at our particular historical moment and the newly available social media that link us one to another. Digitally enabled social networks, to be sure, are familiar sites in the new media landscape, especially for youth (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010). Researchers have shown that such networks are prime out-of-school locations for maintaining existing social ties, constructing and experimenting with multimodal representations of self, and creating and exchanging social capital (Beach & DoerrStevens, 2009; boyd & Ellison, 2008; Greenhow & Robelia, 2009b; Knobel & Lankshear, 2008; Lenhart & Madden, 2007; Livingstone & Bober, 2004; Parker, 2010). Educators are beginning to explore the integration of social media into educational spaces (e.g., Davidson & Goldberg, 2009; cf. Greenhow et al., 2009), even as they come to terms with heightened concerns about privacy, access, and safety (Clifford, 2010; Livingstone & Brake, 2010; Tynes, 2007). However, studies to explore the educational implications of social networking are still few and far between (cf. Ahn, 2010; Greenhow et al., 2009). In the remainder of this article, we describe our recent work to develop, research, and theorize a private international social network for youth, which we call Space2Cre8, and its associated off line instructional programs, which we call Kidnet. We consider the network and programs as sites for cosmopolitan practice and our opportunity to explore how youth might develop f lexible, adaptive, and critical capacities for constructing, negotiating, and conveying meanings in the context of social media. Adolescents in grades 7–11 in South Africa, India, the United States, and Norway currently participate in Kidnet either after school or during school in enrichment classes. The students collaborate with their local peers and newfound international friends to create and exchange digital artifacts via an online multinational and multilingual network, Space2Cre8, which they also helped design. In addition to creating and sharing digital stories, digital music, stop-motion videos, animations, and digitized artwork, youth also engage in critical dialogues about common concerns in their everyday lives and respective societies, such 87 to reveal themselves to the world, and the playful, kaleidoscopic, emergent, and transformative nature of those revelations. In the educational context of the Kidnet program, youth are encouraged to ref lect on how their various presentations of self function as media representations to multiple audiences. We believe that such self-ref lexive practices help youth develop cosmopolitan dispositions and habits of mind. The development of the self and the ability to critically ref lect on that development—that is, processes of self-work—are a key part of negotiating the self ’s relation to others. As Delanty (2006) described, a central component of cosmopolitanism involves Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54(2) October 2010 the internal transformation of social and cultural phenomena through self-problematization and pluralization. It is in the interplay of self, other and world that cosmopolitan processes come into play. Without a learning process, that is an internal cognitive transformation, it makes little sense in calling something cosmopolitan. (p. 41) We would argue that this self-transformation, or learning about oneself through “self-problematization and pluralization,” is an important part of developing an ethical stance in the world; without ref lective, ref lexive, and critical work on oneself, it seems quite impossible to understand one’s obligations toward others and develop a just and moral responsiveness toward them. Thus, youth’s social networking activities, Figure 1 De’Von’s First Profile Page on Space2Cre8 88 Note. Student name is a pseudonym. including opportunities for self-presentation on the network coupled with off line ref lective and artistic practices, functioned in our program as crucial contexts for the development of the self. One of the most prominent ways that our adolescent participants represented themselves in the digital space, exhibiting this care for the self, was through the design of a profile page, a powerful means by which to control others’ impressions of them through the choice of a profile picture, background image or color, and variously colored text. Participants maneuvered complex articulations of themselves through their profile designs, as they negotiated multiple audiences who might view these pages, including local classmates, teachers, researchers, and distant youth, some more familiar than others. Also, these articulations shifted over time as youth experimented with different “narratives of the self ” (Stevenson, 2003b, p. 346). For example, De’Von (all names are pseudonyms), an articulate but reserved eighth-grader in California on the U.S. site, originally created a profile on the Space2Cre8 network that combined a picture of an anime character with the name ~ProtoType~ and this self-description (see Figure 1): Hello, my name is [De’Von], I’m 13 years old. I like playing basketball and football. I’m known for my jokes and stuff. Yea, i like animals, my favorite animal is a male lion because of the beautiful mane. I look up to my mother a lot. well, this is simple things about me. In this description, De’Von named some “simple things” about himself that might interest his potential friends and spark a conversation about something shared: his enjoyment in sports, his admiration of his mother, his interest in animals, his aesthetic sensibility (beauty in a lion’s mane), and his sense of humor. From his reference to how he is “known” by others to his closing line announcing what holds his list together (“simple things about me”), we see this textual description as infused with an awareness of others who might read it, others who might not know his penchant for jokes, his interest in sports and animals, or his unique nature (i.e., that he is a prototype). Communicating online with unknown others, without benefit of prior off line relationships or shared online affinity spaces, is an exciting but My name is [De’Von] but i chosed the name of Rinkhals. Rinkhals is a spitting cobra. I love this animal because its highly smart. It plays dead to avoid fight, I think this snake like me because i avoid conf lict, but when this snake is provoked its attacks to kill. Doesn’t stop till the other person leaves xD! But other than that this is my favorite animal and i chosed it to represent [me]. In this second iteration of his profile, after coming to know others on the site over the previous months and thinking about the representational and communicative potentials of images through classroom activities, De’Von seemed to change his mind about how he wanted other youth on the network to perceive him. Like De’Von, the adolescents on the site often Figure 2 De’Von’s Second Iteration of His Profile Page on Space2Cre8 Note. Student name is a pseudonym. created a mutable online identity that both revealed and concealed different parts of themselves for multiple audiences. This tension about what to reveal or conceal was constantly straddled by these adolescents as they coordinated who they might be in the online community with their identities performed among their peers in day-to-day school and home worlds. In choosing Rinkhals to represent himself, De’Von communicated a dual message to both sets of peers—that is, he may seem to avoid conf licts, but should you cross him, he is a force to be reckoned with. This message of strength and smarts seemed particularly important in the urban setting in which De’Von lives, one of the most violent cities in the United States, where a quiet nature might be perceived as weakness. Youth like De’Von regularly capitalized on the affordances of different modes for communicating multiple meanings. In their images, music, and text, which they mixed in complex ways across the site, these young people explored powerful ways of communicating with their peers through the various affordances of meaning available through the network. As youth imagined future and potential selves, took strides toward developing as strong communicators, and negotiated their understandings of themselves as ethical actors—all activities encouraged through the semiotically rich identity work available through the digital (Buckingham, 2008)—they engaged in the ethical project of self-making. De’Von’s shifting representations of self to others over time Literate Arts in a Global World: Reframing Social Networking as Cosmopolitan Practice daunting challenge—a 21st-century literacy, if you will, that adds to and sometimes overfaces the concerns of print-based literacy, such as spelling, diction, and coherence. De’Von and his Kidnet cohort were supported in their efforts to communicate with unknown others in the Space2Cre8 network by an accompanying curriculum that foregrounded ref lection on representational choices online and the potential impact of these choices on distant audiences. Bolstered by this assistance, De’Von found potential openings for dialogue through imagined points of connection, building common ground through small moments of communicative outreach. (As readers will notice, De’Von’s postings contained errors in grammar and spelling. We do not have space in this article to discuss differences in conventions for online and off line writing or our particular approach to encouraging participants to be thoughtful users of written language. However, we note that in our programs, particularly in the United States, although we did not eschew attention to sentence-level conventions, we did not privilege such attention either, and more often we gave participants free play to communicate by using youthful idioms.) When De’Von had the opportunity to remake his profile during a network upgrade, he changed his username to Rinkhals and chose an image of the snake as his profile picture (see Figure 2). He chose this photo of a cobra to represent himself on the network, as he explained in the “about me” section of his page, because the snake is like him in key ways: 89 constitute one such kind of self-work, the project of representing oneself to myriad audiences through the semiotic choices available on the social network. When supported by an educative framework, as were De’Von and his classmates’ efforts, this kind of representational endeavor can encourage ref lection and critical consideration of one’s meaning-making choices. As youth develop and display this care for the self (cf. Foucault, 1994), working toward being the best person they can be, they engage in an ethics of self-making, which Hansen (2010) called “selfimprovement,” whereby people “might endeavor to cultivate as richly as possible their intellectual, moral, political, and aesthetic being” (p. 8), activities intertwined with cosmopolitan practice and instantiated through literate arts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54(2) October 2010 Looking Outward: Self in Relation to Others and the World 90 It is through such practices of self-presentation that small moments of connection with others occurred on the social network. As youth interacted with one another around these self-representations, whether profile pictures, background images, videos, or blogs, they negotiated differences in beliefs, aesthetics, cultural norms, and communicative practices as they searched for commonality. Papastergiadis (2007) has argued that it is “the small degrees of overlap between different people that can produce a glimpse of cosmopolitan consciousness” (p. 144), for cosmopolitanism does not exist in a fixed state but only “in the act of relating to the other” (p. 146). The understandings and relationships developed among youth in transitory, phatic, emergent, or occasionally sustained interactions across the social network can contribute to cosmopolitan habits of mind. Certainly as youth learn self-ref lexive moves, through which they consider their presentations of self from multiple points of view, they can come to better understandings of themselves in relation to others and the world .As Hansen (2010) has argued, the abutment of self to other is a crucial part of gaining critical distance from oneself, a distance that allows for a “ref lective loyalty to the known” (p. 17). That is, we might gain new, ref lective understandings on what we know about the world through the judicious juxtaposition of “familiar frames of interpretation and understanding” (p. 17) with alternative frames. This stepping back from one’s grounded interpretative position in the world—seeing the world through new eyes—is fundamentally intertwined with our capacity to develop respectful and hospitable relations with others, for as Turner (2002) stated, “the ability to respect others requires a certain distance from one’s own culture” (p. 55). Smith (2007) extended Turner’s notion of critical distance as a crucially other-directed phenomenon by marrying it to Arendt’s concept of worldliness, which includes the idea of critical distance as a means of “[stepping] back from [our] ties and commitments without disowning them” to “place ourselves in a better position to understand and criticize the world” (p. 46). Thus, a critical component in developing a cosmopolitan disposition involves a self-ref lexivity that is both inward and outward looking, balancing one’s position in the world with a consideration of others and our obligations to them. One way that this critical distance, gained from considering one’s position in the world relative to others, has been instantiated in the Kidnet project is through youth’s viewing of one another’s digital artifacts, itself a practice supported by classroom conversations about how we interpret others’ digital creations and make meaning through multiple modes. One striking example occurred when a participant on a U.S. site, a 13-year-old boy named Jorell, viewed a set of movies made by youth in Norway. Shown one such movie in his Kidnet class for critique and guided discussion, Jorell became inspired to watch all six movies in a row on Space2Cre8 and to leave comments and feedback for the authors. The topic of the movies was drug and alcohol use, part of a schoolsponsored program that had been integrated with the Kidnet Norway class during the school day. In conjunction with this program, six groups of students in Norway filmed videos that they wrote and acted in, editing the final version into short movies and uploading them onto the Space2Cre8 network for feedback. Filmed in Norwegian with English subtitles, the movies generated a f lurry of interest, but none more intense than Jorell’s. How to responsibly and hospitably communicate with other Pull quote needed youth is a central challenge for parhere ticipants in the Kidnet project, one that is a frequent topic of discussion both on- and off line. This does not mean accepting what others argue wholesale or holding back from asserting one’s own opinion; rather, it entails engaging in dialogue and adopting generous interpretive stances. The social network has provided many opportunities for youth to situate themselves and their local worlds in relation to others and experiment with self-making through the hybridization of multimedia artifacts. The network has done so in the context of off line programs that encourage youth to ref lect on their own choices in communicating with others through multiple avenues for self-making. In particular, youth across the four countries have drawn on popular culture as a resource for experimentation with positioning. One such example is a complex representation of an anime character by a 12-year-old girl named Monica on a U.S. site who was an avid fan of the anime series Naruto. A regular contributor on fan sites, Monica had created her own character about whom she wrote extensive fiction; she had also taught herself to speak some Japanese and regularly chatted about anime on manga fan sites. Well-practiced in communicative norms regarding shared affinities with strangers, she was very outgoing on the Space2Cre8 network and had posted an extensive blog about her character, which she referenced throughout the site. Monica identified so closely with this character that she used it as her online avatar, complete with profile picture and username (see Figure 3). Her role in the Kidnet program was often that of a mentor to other youth, through her leadership in classroom discussions as she modeled considerate and ref lective responses to other youth’s media and through her willingness to show her classmates how to navigate programs online (e.g., photo editing, audio capturing). Literate Arts in a Global World: Reframing Social Networking as Cosmopolitan Practice Weeks later, when filming a short introductory clip for a group movie that his U.S. class would send to Norway, Jorell spoke eloquently and at length to his Norwegian peers about his own experiences with alcohol, especially his upset at living with parents who sometimes drank too much and struck him and his siblings (a topic depicted in more than one of the Norwegian movies that had also come to the fore in a digital story from India). Clearly introspective, his ref lection on his own experiences after viewing the movies by the Norwegian youth was at the same time a reaching out—a seeking of common communicative ground about a shared experience—and a reaching in—a self-ref lexive consideration of his own position as a victim of alcohol abuse in relation to the student actors in the film. Jorell’s poignant autobiographical story in response to other youth’s movies involved not only this critical, inward-looking self-ref lection but also a “ref lective openness to the new” (Hansen, 2010, p. 17) that scholars of cosmopolitanism call for in considering what constitutes a cosmopolitan outlook. A number of theorists writing about rooted cosmopolitanism, or cosmopolitanism that balances the local and the universal (e.g., Appiah, 2006; Delanty, 2006; Hansen, 2010), have described the need to balance ref lection on one’s own beliefs with an openness to considering those of others. This notion of “openness” involves a focus on our obligations to others, including our obligation to listen and respond respectfully and considerately. As Smith (2007) characterized this openness, it must involve an “ethic of care for the world” (p. 47) that motivates our actions and beliefs through a caring connection with others. According to Ong (2009), this disposition is not a fixed identity but a continuum, in which we “we weave in and out of being open and closed to difference—in the rhythm of daily life” (p. 463). Appiah (2006) noted that one crucial tool for balancing self-ref lexivity and openness to the world is dialogue. Through our dialogues with others, we can negotiate differences that are the basis for all of “the varied spatialities and temporalities of encounters between self and Other, with each one having its unique geography of power” (Ong, 2009, p. 463). 91 Figure 3 Monica’s Avatar on Space2Cre8 Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54(2) October 2010 Note. Student name is a pseudonym 92 One example of how youth learned to be hospitable readers, able to take up respectful and open interpretive positions, occurred in a youthful interchange around Monica’s anime character. In response to her blog about her character’s backstory, Rahim, a 12-year-old boy from Norway who is also an anime fan, posted a disparaging comment about Monica’s interest: thats so mainstream -__-, u should watch sumthing spec, that no one watches and is interesting! -.- if u didnt know naruto’s rated the best manga/anime in the world ! so everyone have watched it… Rahim’s criticism of Monica’s interest in the Naruto series appeared to stem from a belief that art should not be derivative and that one should distinguish oneself through interest in less popular media. Monica’s “mainstream” interest in Naruto, one of the best rated “manga/anime in the world,” was an implied critique of following the crowd instead of being unique. Monica bristled at this critique and its implications, justifying her reinterpretation of a character as “making it her own” when she responded to Rahim on his more public profile wall: um i know that! Still i created my own charater. ade my own twist to it and many more. And yes it may be watched all over the world but recreating it and making it interesting makes it more popuar. espically on myspace/face/ect. -_-;; So i’m the one to speak. if you dont like it just say it, kay ^~^ In her reply, Monica tried to engage Rahim in a conversation about how she had added her own twist to the character to make it more interesting to her audiences on different social networks like MySpace or Facebook, in fact adding to the series’s popularity rather than just following it. But even more than engaging in conversation about the benefits of fan reinterpretations of existing characters in an anime series and justifying the authority of her knowledge (“i’m the one to speak”), Monica seemed to be socializing Rahim into the norms of communication on a global social network and doing so in a public forum. She corrected him gently but firmly when she told him to “just say it” if he does not like something. A couple of days later, when her teachers asked her to find someone on the network to whom she could ask questions, Monica chose to follow up with Rahim, after no reply to her previous communication, and her next overture made this socialization even more explicit: um [Rahim] i have a few questions for you. 1. what kinds of sports do you like? 2. If you were given a chance to visit okalnd would you and why? 3. What kinds of anime do you like and have you ever heard of ultra maniac? 4. Last but not least could you see that many people has seen naruto but as you should know that many people love to add a twist to it like i did. As you can see i have twisted it around and added a few charters and made my own boi. She orrignally was sakura but i changed the picture and made a chater into my own. I do respect your critism but if you could understand that if you could of said it in a nicer way i would of accepted it easier. Still thank you for commenting. and you look nice in your picture Monica began by prompting Rahim to engage in a continued conversation through the question activity guided by her teacher, their disagreement about her interest in Naruto notwithstanding. She asked him about his interests and followed these questions Developing the Literate Arts: A Cosmopolitan Turn In holding a cosmopolitan lens to this international social networking project, we hoped to illustrate the microprocesses and conversational practices that constitute care for the world as youth imagine themselves in relation to distal and diverse others and develop sensitivity toward others’ meaning-making practices in relation to their own. In doing so, we wanted to highlight both self- and other-work, the ethical and the moral, as two tightly intertwined strands of cosmopolitanism that we separated in our analyses only to argue for the importance of both in literacy studies. If we look only to youthful engagement with the world—whether indices of civic engagement like voting or volunteering—or only to youthful practices of the self—including identity work and creative semiotic and multimodal practices visible in much of the afterschool literature—then we risk missing the microdevelopment of cosmopolitan engagement. By tracing youth’s moment-to-moment interactional work on the social network, including their shifting definitions of self and understandings of others across multiple contexts and over time, their semiotic choices, and their rhetorical struggles, we hope to better understand the process of becoming a person engaged with the global world and coming to see oneself as such a person, as this process unfolds in a digital online environment. We also hope to illuminate the role of multiple symbol systems in this process and an approach to making meaning artfully and consciously that parallels the careful and artful construction of a life. As this project also illustrates, the development of such dispositions and concomitant semiotic strategies is difficult work; we have found that the global and multimodal can increase the challenges of reading and writing exponentially as well as raise their stakes. It follows that there is a need for an educational framework to support both the discursive and mobilized development of engaged citizens (Byrne, 2008; Jenkins, 2009) who take seriously their obligations to others and recognize the other in themselves (Silverstone, 2007). Similarly, social media practices might be reimagined as helpfully traversing institutional boundaries of school and nonschool, bridging what has become a traditional binary in literacy studies (cf. Hull & Schultz, 2001). With others (Alvermann, 2008; Livingstone, 2010; Moje, 2009; Soep, 2006), we recommend eschewing an uncritical celebration of out-of-school literacy and media practices, although acknowledging the importance of the motivational contexts in which they appear and the power of the symbolic creativity (Willis, 1990) that often characterizes them. Neither is it acceptable, however, to acquiesce to a schoolbased reluctance to engage with the communication Literate Arts in a Global World: Reframing Social Networking as Cosmopolitan Practice with another that aimed to bring his attention back to their conf lict over her interest in the Naruto series. She explained that she respects his criticism but reminded him to say it “in a nicer way” so that she could hear it better. She ended with a courteous gesture, thanking him for his opinion and complimenting him on his photo. Monica thus attempted to listen and indeed hear Rahim, and she encouraged him (through her thoughtful questions and carefully placed praise) to listen to and hear her as well. Indeed, he did hear her, later prefacing his thoughtful answers to her questions with an apology: “SRY for not saying it in a nice way xD.” It is in this moment of peer-to-peer socialization into respectful communicative norms, socialization supported by classroom activities that foregrounded such ref lective moves, that we might understand how listening to others can be an essential capacity for communication in the 21st century. For youth, developing these capacities for communicating across differences—that is, capacities for listening to one another and being sensitive to the kinds of meanings made by people who may understand the world differently than we do—is a challenging task, yet can be facilitated by social networking turned as an educative practice. When youth communicate with one another via social media, they must struggle to develop sensitivities to the meaningmaking practices of others. This sensitivity includes the capacity to listen carefully to others and be generous in one’s interpretations of others’ intents. Yet, it also involves the awareness of multiple audiences, some real and some projected, whose sensibilities and expectations may be quite different from one’s own. 93 revolution, although the generally glacial pace of institutional change, especially around new literacies and new technologies, and especially during an accountability-driven, test-centric era, can be daunting (Snyder, 2009). Our own approach has been to establish extraand out-of-school programs, tactically determining where best to insinuate, at this historical moment, new literacies in old spaces (cf. de Certeau, 1984). We hope this article inspires pedagogical tactics and institutional strategies that position students to become cosmopolitan communicators who are at home in a global world. Notes Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54(2) October 2010 Many thanks to members of our research group and Kidnet team: Sangeeta Anand, Anand Chitravanshi, Ola Erstad, Anna Floch, Adrienne Herd, Suenel Holloway, Garth Jones, Gary Jones, Nora Kenney, Knut Lundby, Stacy Marple, Mark E. Nelson, Urvashi Sahni, John Scott, Kenneth Silseth, Xolani Tembu, Kristin Beate Vasbø, Rian Whittle, and Duncan Winter. We also gratefully acknowledge the support of Mike Wood; the Spencer Foundation and Lauren Jones Young; the UC Links project of the University of California; P. David Pearson and the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Berkeley; and the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New York University. 94 References Ahn, J. (2010). The effect of social network sites on adolescents’ social and academic development: Contemporary issues and research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Alvermann, D.E. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies for classroom practice and research? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 8–19. doi:10.1598/ JAAL.52.1.2 Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Appiah, K.A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York: W.W. Norton. Banks, J.A. (2004). Teaching for social justice, diversity, and citizenship in a global world. The Educational Forum, 68(4), 296–305. doi:10.1080/00131720408984645 Beach, R., Anson, C., Breuch, L.K., & Swiss, T. (2009). Teaching writing using blogs, wikis, and other digital tools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Beach, R., & Doerr-Stevens, C. (2009). Learning argument practices through online role-play: Toward a rhetoric of significance and transformation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(6), 460–468. Beach, R., Hull, G., & O’Brien, D. (in press). Transforming English language arts in a Web 2.0 world. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (3rd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis; Newark, DE: International Reading Association; Chicago: National Council of Teachers of English. Beck, U., & Sznaider, N. (2006). Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: A research agenda. British Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 1–23. doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2006.00091.x boyd, d. (2008). Why youth  social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media (pp. 119–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. boyd, d.m., & El l ison, N.B. (20 08). Socia l net work sites: Def inition, histor y, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210 –230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x Buckingham, D. (2008). Introducing identity. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media (pp. 1–24). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Byrne, D.N. (2008). Public discourse, communit y concer ns, and civ ic eng agement: Ex plor ing black social networking traditions on BlackPlanet.com. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 319–340. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00398.x Clifford, S. (2010, April 8). Teaching about Web includes troublesome parts. The New York Times. Retrieved June 28, 2010, from www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/education/09cyberkids.html Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press. Davidson, C.N., & Goldberg, D.T. (with Jones, Z.M.). (2009). The future of learning institutions in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Delanty, G. (2006). The cosmopolitan imagination: Critical cosmopolitanism and social theory. British Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 25–47. doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2006.00092.x Dowdall, C. (2009). Impressions, improvisations and compositions: Reframing children’s text production in social network sites. Literacy, 43(2), 91–99. doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2009.00521.x Erstad, O., Gilje, Ø., & de Lange, T. (2007). Re-mixing multimodal resources: Multiliteracies and digital production in Norwegian media education. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(2), 183–198. Foucault, M. (1994). The ethic of care for the self as a practice of freedom ( J.D. Gauthier, Trans.). In J. Bernauer & D. Rasmussen (Eds.), The final Foucault (pp. 1–20). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009a). Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 119–140. doi:10.1080/17439880902923580 Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009b). Old communication, new literacies: Social network sites as social learning resources. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 1130–1161. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01484.x Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J.E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259. doi:10.3102/0013189X09336671 American Life Project. Retrieved June 29, 2010, from www .pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/Writing-Technology-and -Teens.aspx Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Teens, privacy and online social networks: How teens manage their online identities and personal information in the age of MySpace. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and mobile Internet use among teens and young adults. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Lewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, E.B. (Eds.). (2007). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Livingstone, S. (2010, February). Youthful participation: What have we learned, what shall we ask next? Paper presented at the annual Digital Media and Learning Conference, La Jolla, CA. Livingstone, S., & Bober, M. (2004). Taking up online opportunities?: Children’s uses of the Internet for education, communication and participation. E-Learning, 1(3), 395–419. Livingstone, S., & Brake, D.R. (2010). On the rapid rise of social networking sites: New findings and policy implications. Children & Society, 24(1), 75–83. doi:10.1111/j.10990860.2009.00243.x Luce-Kapler, R., Sumara, D., & Iftody, T. (2010). Teaching ethical know-how in new literary spaces. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(7), 536–541. doi:10.1598/JAAL.53.7.1 Lundby, K. (Ed.). (2008). Digital storytelling, mediatized stories: Selfrepresentations in new media. New York: Peter Lang. Moje, E.B. (2009). A call for new research on new and multiliteracies. Research in the Teaching of English, 43(4), 348–362. National Council of Teachers of English. (2007). NCTE framework for 21st century curriculum and assessment. Chicago: Author. Retrieved June 29, 2010, from www.ncte.org/ governance/21stcenturyframework The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. Ong, J.C. (2009). The cosmopolitan continuum: Locating cosmopolitanism in media and cultural studies. Media, Culture & Society, 31(3), 449–466. Papastergiadis, N. (2007). Glimpses of cosmopolitanism in the hospitality of art. European Journal of Social Theory, 10(1), 139– 152. doi:10.1177/1368431006068766 Parker, J.K. (2010). Teaching tech-savvy kids: Bringing digital media into the classroom, grades 5–12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Rizvi, F. (2009). Towards cosmopolitan learning. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(3), 253–268. doi:10.1080/01596300903036863 Shar ples, M., Graber, R., Har r ison, C., & Logan, K. (2009). E-safety and Web 2.0 for children aged 11–16. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 70–84. doi:10.1111/ j.1365-2729.2008.00304.x Silverstone, R. (2007). Media and morality: On the rise of the mediapolis. Malden, MA: Polity. Smith, W. (2007). Cosmopolitan citizenship: Virtue, irony and worldliness. European Journal of Social Theory, 10(1), 37–52. doi:10.1177/1368431006068755 Snyder, I. (2009). Shuff ling towards the future: The enduring dominance of book culture in literacy education. In M. Literate Arts in a Global World: Reframing Social Networking as Cosmopolitan Practice Hansen, D.T. (2010). Cosmopolitanism and education: A view from the ground. Teachers College Record, 112(1), 1–30. Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’ use of the Internet. Communication Research, 35(5), 602–621. doi:10.1177/0093650208321782 Hull, G.A., & James, M.A. (2007). Geographies of hope: A study of urban landscapes, digital media, and children’s representations of place. In P. O’Neill (Ed.), Blurring boundaries: Developing writers, researchers, and teachers: A tribute to William L. Smith (pp. 250–289). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Hull, G.A., & Katz, M. (2006). Crafting an agentive self: Case studies of digital storytelling. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(1), 43–81. Hull, G.A., Kenney, N.L., Marple, S., & Forsman-Schneider, A. (2006). Many versions of masculine: An exploration of boys’ identity formation through digital storytelling in an afterschool program. New York: The Robert Browne Foundation. Hull, G.A., & Nelson, M.E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22(2), 224–261. doi:10.1177/0741088304274170 Hull, G.A., & Nelson, M.E. (2009). Literacy, media, and morality: Making the case for an aesthetic turn. In M. Baynham & M. Prinsloo (Eds.), The future of literacy studies (pp. 199–227). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (2001). Literacy and learning out of school: A review of theory and research. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 575–611. doi:10.3102/00346543071004575 Hull, G.A., Stornaiuolo, A., & Sahni, U. (2010). Cultural citizenship and cosmopolitan practice: Global youth communicate online. English Education, 42(4), 331–367. Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., boyd, d., Cody, R., HerrStephenson, B., et al. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jenkins, H. (with Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robison, A.J.). (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kleingeld, P., & Brown, E. (2006). Cosmopolitanism. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2009 ed.). Retrieved October 28, 2009, from plato.stanford.edu/ archives/sum2009/entries/cosmopolitanism/ Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2008). Digital literacy and participation in online social networking spaces. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 249–278). New York: Peter Lang. Kress, G. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and Composition, 22(1), 5–22. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2004.12.004 Lam, W.S.E. (2006). Re-envisioning language, literacy, and the immigrant subject in new mediascapes. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 1(3), 171–195. Lambert, J. (2009). Digital storytelling: Capturing lives, creating community (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: Digital Diner. Lemke, C., Coughlin, E., Garcia, L., Reifsneider, D., & Baas, J. (2009). Leadership for Web 2.0 in education: Promise and reality. Culver City, CA: Metiri Group. Lenhart, A., Arafeh, S., Smith, A., & Macgill, A. (2008). Writing, technology and teens. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & 95 Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54(2) October 2010 Baynham & M. Prinsloo (Eds.), The future of literacy studies (pp. 141–159). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Soep, E. (2006). Youth media citizenship: Beyond “youth voice.” Afterschool Matters, 5, 1–11. Stevenson, N. (2003a). Cultural citizenship: Cosmopolitan questions. Berkshire, England: Open University Press. Stevenson, N. (2003b). Cultural citizenship in the ‘cultural’ society: A cosmopolitan approach. Citizenship Studies, 7(3), 331–348. doi:10.1080/13621020302214 Thomas, S., Joseph, C., Laccetti, J., Mason, B., Mills, S., Perril, S., et al. (2007). Transliteracy: Crossing divides. First Monday, 12(12). Retrieved July 13, 2010, from firstmonday.org/htbin/ cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2060/1908 Thorne, S.L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38–67. Turner, B.S. (2002). Cosmopolitan virtue, globalization and patriotism. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(1/2), 45–63. doi:10.1177/026327640201900102 96 Tynes, B.M. (2007). Internet safety gone wild?: Sacrificing the educational and psychosocial benefits of online social environments. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(6), 575–584. doi:10.1177/0743558407303979 Ware, P.D., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 190–205. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00274.x Willis, P. (1990). Common culture: Symbolic work at play in the everyday cultures of the young. Berkshire, England: Open University Press. Hull teaches at New York University, USA; e-mail glynda.hull@gmail.com. Stornaiuolo teaches at the University of California, Berkeley, USA; e-mail amystorn@gmail.com. 203 Arts of the Contact Zone By Mary Louise Pratt From Ways of Reading, 5th edition, ed. David Bartholomae and Anthony Petroksky (New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999) Whenever the subject of literacy comes up, what often pops first into my mind is a conversation I overheard eight years ago between my son Sam and his best friend, Willie, aged six and seven, respectively: “Why dont you trade me Many Trails for Carl Yats .. . Yesits … Ya-strum-scrum.” “Thats not how you say it, dummy, its Carl Yes … Yes .. . oh, I dont know.” Sam and Willie had just discovered baseball cards. Many Trails was their decoding, with the help of first-grade English phonics, of the name Manny Trillo. The name they were quite rightly stumped on was Carl Y astremski. That was the first time I remembered seeing them put their incipient literacy to their own use, and I was of course thrilled. Sam and Willie learned a lot about phonics that year by trying to decipher surnames on baseball cards, and a lot about cities, states, heights, weights, places of birth, stages of life. In the years that followed, I watched Sam apply his arithmetic skills to working out batting averages and subtracting retirement years from rookie years; I watched him develop senses of patterning and order by arranging and rearranging his cards for hours on end, and aesthetic judgment by comparing different photos, different series, layouts, and color schemes. American geography and history took shape in his mind through baseball cards. Much.of his social life revolved around trading them, and he learned about exchange, fairness, trust, the importance of processes as opposed to results, what it means to get cheated, taken advantage of, even robbed. Baseball cards were the medium of his economic life too. Nowhere better to learn the power and arbitrariness of money, the absolute divorce between use value and exchange value, notions of long- and short-term investment, the possibility of personal values that are independent of market values. Baseball cards meant baseball card shows, where there was much to be learned about adult worlds as well. And baseball cards opened the door to baseball books, shelves and shelves of encyclopedias, magazines, histories, biographies, novels, books of jokes, anecdotes, cartoons, even poems. Sam learned the history of American racism and the struggle against it through baseball; he saw the Depression and two world wars from behind home plate. He learned the meaning of commodified labor, what it means for ones body and talents to be owned and dispensed by another. He knows something about Japan, Taiwan, Cuba, and Central America and how men and boys do things there. Through the history and experience of baseball stadiums he thought about architecture, light, wind, topography, meteorology, the dynamics of public space. He learned the meaning of expertise, of knowing about something well enough that you can start a conversation with a stranger and feel sure of holding your own. Even with an adult–especially with an adult. Throughout his preadolescent years, baseball history was Sams luminous point of contact with grown-ups, his lifeline to caring. And, of course, all this time he was also playing baseball, Struggling his way through the stages of the local Little League system, lucky 204 enough to be a pretty good player, loving the game and coming to know deeply his strengths and weaknesses; Literacy began for Sam with the newly pronounceable names on the Picture cards and brought him what has been easily the broadest, most varied, most enduring, and most integrated experience of his thirteen-year life. Like many parents, I was delighted to see schooling give Sam the tools with which to find and open all these doors. At the same time I found it unforgivable that schooling itself gave him nothing remotely as meaningful to do, let alone anything that would actually take him beyond the referential, masculinist ethos of baseball and its lore.· However, I was not invited here to speak as a parent, nor as. an expert on literacy. I was asked to speak as an MI.A [Modem Language Association] member working in the elite academy. In that capacity my contribution is undoubtedly supposed to be abstract, irrelevant, and anchored outside the real world. I wouldn’t dream of disappointing anyone. I propose immediately to head back several centuries to a text that has a few points in common with baseball cards and raises thoughts about what Tony Sarmiento, in his comments to the conference, called new visions of literacy. In 1908 a Peruvianist named Richard Pietschmann was exploring in the Danish Royal Archive in Copenhagen and came across a manuscript. It was dated in the city of Cuzco in Peru, in the year 1613, some forty years after the final fall of the Inca empire to the Spanish and signed with an unmistakably Andean indigenous name: Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala. Written in a mixture of Quechua and ungrammatical, expressive Spanish, the manuscript was a letter addressed by an unknown but apparently literate Andean to King Philip III of Spain. What stunned Pietschmann was that the letter was twelve hundred pages long. There were almost eight hundred pages of written text and four hundred of captioned line drawings. It was titled The First New Chronicle and Good Government. No one knew (or knows) how the manuscript got to the library in Copenhagen or how long it had been there. No one, it appeared, had ever bothered to read it or figured out how. Quechua was not thought of as a written language in 1908, nor Andean culture as a literate culture. Pietschmann prepared a paper on his find, which he presented in London in 1912, a year after the rediscovery ofMachu Picchu by Hiram Bingham. Reception, by an international congress of Americanists, was apparently confused. It took twenty-five years for a facsimile edition of the work to appear in Paris. It was not till the late 1970s, as positivist reading habits gave way to interpretive studies and colonial elitisms to postcolonial pluralisms, that Western scholars found ways of reading Guaman Poma s New Chronicle and Good Government as the extraordinary intercultural tour de force that it was. The letter got there, only 350 years too late, a miracle and a terrible tragedy. I propose to say a few more words about this erstwhile unreadable text, in order to lay out some thoughts about writing and literacy in what I like to call the contact zones. I use this term to refer to social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power, such as colonialism, slavery, or their aftermaths as they are lived out in many parts of the world today. Eventually I will use the term to reconsider the models of community that many ofus rely on in teaching and theorizing and that are under challenge today. But first a little more about Guaman Poma’s giant letter to Philip III. Insofar as anything is known about him at all, Guaman Poma exemplified the sociocultural complexities produced by conquest and empire. He was an indigenous Andean who 205 claimed noble Inca descent and who had adopted (at least in some sense) Christianity. He may have worked in the Spanish colonial administration as an interpreter, scribe, or assistant to a Spanish tax collector–as a mediator, in short. He says he learned to write from his half brother, a mestizo whose Spanish father had given him access to religious education. Guaman Poma’s letter to the king is written in two languages (Spanish and Quechua) and two parts. The first is called the Nueva coronica, “New Chronicle.” The title is important. The chronicle of course was the main writing apparatus through which the Spanish presented their American conquests to themselves. It constituted one of the main official discourses. In writing a “new chronicle,” Guaman Poma took over the official Spanish genre for his own ends. Those ends were, roughly, to construct a new picture of the world, a picture of a Christian world with Andean rather than European peoples at the center of it–Cuzco, not Jerusalem. In the New Chronicle Guaman Poma begins by rewriting the · Christian history of the world from Adam and Eve (Fig. 1 [p. 586]), incorporating the Amerindians into it as offspring of one of the sons of Noah. He identifies five ages of Christian history that he links in parallel with the five ages of canonical Andean history-separate but equal trajectories that diverge with Noah and reintersect not with Columbus but with Saint Bartholomew, claimed to have preceded Columbus in the Americas. In a couple of hundred pages, Guaman Poma constructs a veritable encyclopedia of Inca and pre-Inca history, customs, laws, social forms, public offices, and dynastic leaders. The depictions resemble European manners and customs description, but also reproduce the meticulous detail with which knowledge in Inca society was stored on quipus and in the oral memories of elders. Guaman Poma’s New Chronicle is an instance of what I have proposed to call an autoethnographic text, by which I mean a text in which people undertake to describe themselves in ways that engage with representations others have made of them. Thus if ethnographic texts are those in which European metropolitan subjects represent to themselves their others (usually their conquered others), autoethnographic texts are representations that the so-defined others construct in response to or in dialogue with those texts. Autoethnographic texts are not, then, what are usually thought of as autochthonous forms of expression or self-representation (as the Andean quipus were). Rather they involve a selective collaboration with and appropriation of idioms of the metropolis or the conqueror. These are merged or infiltrated to varying degrees with indigenous idioms to create self-representations intended to intervene in metropolitan modes of understanding. Autoethnographic works are often addressed to both metropolitan audiences and the speakers own community. Their reception is thus highly indeterminate. Such texts often constitute a marginalized groups point of entry into the dominant circuits of print culture. It is interesting to think, for example, of American slave autobiography in its autoethnographic dimensions, which in some respects distinguish it from Euramerican autobiographical tradition. The concept might help explain why some of the earliest published writing by Chicanas took the form of folkloric manners and customs sketches written in English and published in English-language newspapers or folklore magazines (see Trevino). Autoethnographic representation often involves concrete collaborations between people, as between literate ex-slaves and abolitionist intellectuals, or between Guaman Poma and the Inca elders who were his informants. Often, as in Guaman Poma, it involves more than one language. In recent decades autoethnography, critique, and resistance have reconnected with writing in a contemporary creation of the contact zone, the testimonio. 206 Guaman Poma’s New Chronicle ends with a revisionist account of the Spanish conquest, which, he argues, should have been a peaceful encounter of equals with the potential for benefitting both, but for the mindless greed of the Spanish. He parodies Spanish history. Following contact with the Incas, he writes, “In all Castille, there was a great commotion. All day and at night in their dreams the Spaniards were saying, ‘Yndias, yndias, oro, plata, oro, plata del Piru” (“Indies, Indies, gold, silver, gold, silver from Peru”) (Fig. 2 [below]). The Spanish, he writes, brought nothing of value to share with the Andeans, nothing “but armor and guns con la codicia de oro, plata oro y plata, yndias, a las Yndias, Piru” (“with the lust for gold, silver, gold and silver, Indies, the Indies, Peru”) (372). I quote these words as an example of a conquered subject using the conquerors language to construct a parodic, oppositional representation of the conquerors own speech. Guaman Poma mirrors back to the Spanish (in their language, which is alien to him) an image of themselves that they often suppress and will therefore surely recognize. Such are the dynamics of language, writing, and representation in contact zones. The second half of the epistle continues the critique. It is titled Buen gobierno y justicia, “Good Government and Justice,” and combines a description of colonial society in the Andean region with a passionate denunciation of Spanish exploitation and abuse. (These, at the time he was writing, were decimating the population of the Andes at a genocidal rate. In fact, the potential loss of the labor force became a main cause for reform of the system.) Guaman Poma’s most implacable hostility is invoked by the clergy, followed by the dreaded corregidores, or colonial overseers (Fig. 3 [below]). He also praises good works, Christian habits, and just men where he finds them, and offers at length his views as to what constitutes “good government and justice.” The Indies, he argues, should be administered through a collaboration of Inca and Spanish elites. The epistle ends with an imaginary question-and-answer session in which, in a reversal of hierarchy, the king is depicted asking Guaman Poma questions about how to reform the empire–a dialogue imagined across the many lines that divide the Andean scribe from the imperial monarch, and in which the subordinated subject single-handedly gives himself authority in the colonizers language and verbal repertoire. In a way, it worked–this extraordinary text did get written–but in a way it did not, for the letter never reached its addressee. To grasp the import of Guaman Poma’s project, one needs to keep in mind that the Incas had no system of writing. Their huge empire i_ssaid to be the only known instance of a full-blown bureaucratic state society built and administered without writing. Guaman Poma constructs his text by appropriating and adapting pieces of the representational repertoire of the invaders. He does not simply imitate or reproduce it; he selects and adapts it along Andean lines to express (bilingually, mind you) Andean interests and aspirations. Ethnographers have used the term transculturation to describe processes whereby members of subordinated or marginal groups select and invent from materials transmitted by a dominant or metropolitan culture. The term, originally coined by Cuban sociologist Fernando Ortiz in the 1940s, aimed to replace overly reductive concepts of acculturation and assimilation used to characterize culture under conquest. While subordinate peoples do not usually control what emanates from the dominant culture, they do determine to varying extents what gets absorbed into their own and what it gets used for. Transculturation, like autoethnography, is a phenomenon of the contact zone. As scholars have realized only relatively recently, the transcultural character of Guaman Poma’s text is intricately apparent in its visual as well as its written component. The genre of the four hundred line drawings is European–there seems to have been no tradition of representational drawing among the Incas–but in their execution they deploy specifically 207 Andean systems of spatial symbolism that express Andean values and aspirations. 1 In figure 1, for instance, Adam is depicted on the left-hand side below the sun, while Eve is on the right-hand side below the moon, and slightly lower than Adam. The two are divided by the diagonal of Adams digging stick. In Andean spatial symbolism, the diagonal descending from the sun marks the basic line of power and authority dividing upper from lower, male from female, dominant from subordinate. In figure 2, the Inca appears in the same position as Adam, with the Spaniard opposite, and the two at the same height. In figure 3, depicting Spanish abuses of power, the symbolic pattern is reversed. The Spaniard is in a high position indicating dominance, but on the “wrong” (right-hand) side. The diagonals of his lance and that of the servant doing the flogging mark out a line of illegitimate, though real, power. The Andean figures continue to occupy the left-hand side of the picture, but clearly as victims. Guaman Poma wrote that the Spanish conquest had produced “un mundo al reves,” “a world in reverse.” EtP.RiM,:gMVMron – ~ ~ – •EV. —-~- ~ ~ ~~ _ ….. ~ ,. .,,· …. ~—·. =—,r ‘411Cii• -~—— – .. “‘.:..-… – — 208 In sum, Guaman Poma’s text is truly a product of the contact zone. If one thinks of cultures, or literatures, as discrete, coherently structured, monolingual edifices, Guaman Poma’s text, and indeed any autoethnographic work appears anomalous or chaotic–as it apparently did to the European scholars Pietschmann spoke to in 1912. If one does not think of cultures this way, then Guaman Poma’s text is simply heterogeneous, as the Andean region was itself and remains today. Such a text is heterogeneous on the reception end as well as the production end: it will read very differently to people in different positions in the contact zone. Because it deploys European and Andean systems of meaning making, the letter necessarily means differently to bilingual Spanish-Quechua speakers and to monolingual speakers in either language; the drawings mean differently to monocultural readers, Spanish or Andean, and to bicultural readers responding to the Andean symbolic structures embodied in European genres. In the Andes in the early 1600s there existed a literate public with considerable intercultural competence and degrees of bilingualism. Unfortunately, such a community did not exist in the Spanish court with which Guaman Poma was trying to make contact. It is interesting to note that in the same year Guaman Poma sent off his letter, a text by another Peruvian was adopted in official circles in Spain as the canonical Christian mediation between the Spanish conquest and Inca history. It was another huge encyclopedic work, titled the Royal Commentaries of the Incas, written, tellingly, by a mestizo, Inca·Garcilaso de la Vega. Like the mestizo half brother who taught Guaman Poma to read and write, Inca Garcilaso was the son of an Inca princess and a Spanish official, and had lived in Spain since he was seventeen. Though he too spoke Quechua, his book is written in eloquent, standard Spanish, without illustrations. While Guaman Poma’s lifes work sat somewhere unread, the Royal Commentaries was edited and reedited in Spain and the New World, a mediation that coded the Andean past and present in ways thought unthreatening to colonial hierarchy. 2 The textual hierarchy persists; the Royal Commentaries today remains a staple item on Ph.D. reading lists in Spanish, while the New Chronicle and Good Government, despite the ready availability of several fine editions, is not. However, though Guaman Poma’s text did not reach its destination, the 209 transcultural currents of expression it exemplifies continued to evolve in the Andes, as they still do, less in writing than in storytelling, ritual, song, dance-drama, painting and sculpture, dress, textile art, forms of governance, religious belief, and many other vernacular art forms. All express the effects of long-term contact and intractable, unequal conflict. Autoethnography, transculturation, critique, collaboration, bilingualism, mediation, parody, denunciation, imaginary dialogue, vernacular expression–these are some of the literate arts of the contact zone. Miscomprehension, incomprehension, dead letters, unread masterpieces, absolute heterogeneity of meaning–these are some of the perils of writing in the contact zone. They all live among us today in the transnationalized metropolis of the United States and are becoming more widely visible, more pressing, and, like Guaman Poma’s text, more decipherable to those who once would have ignored them in defense of a stable, centered sense of knowledge and reality. Contact and Community The idea of the contact zone is intended in part to contrast with ideas of community that underlie much of the thinking about language, communication, and culture that gets done in the academy . A couple of years ago, thinking about the linguistic theories I knew, I tried to make sense of a utopian quality that often seemed to characterize social analyses of language by the academy. Languages were seen as living in “speech communities,” and these tended to be theorized as discrete, self-defined, coherent entities, held together by a homogeneous competence or grammar shared identically and equally among all the members. This abstract idea of the speech community seemed to reflect, among other things, the utopian way modern nations conceive of themselves as what Benedict Anderson calls “imagined communities.” 3 In a book of that title, Anderson observes that with the possible exception of what he calls “primordial villages,” human communities exist as imagined entities in which people “will never know most of their fellowrnernbers, meet them or even hear of them, yet in the mind of each lives the image of their communion.” “Communities are distinguished,” he goes on to say, “not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined” (15; emphasis mine). Anderson proposes three features that characterize the style in which the modern nation is imagined. First, it is imagined as limited, by “finite, if elastic, boundaries”; second, it is imagined as sovereign; and, third, it is imagined as fraternal, “a deep, horizontal comradeship” for which millions of people are prepared “not so much to kill as willingly to die” (15). As the image suggests, the nation-community is embodied metonymically in the finite, sovereign, fraternal figure of the citizen-soldier. Anderson argues that European bourgeoisies were distinguished by their ability to “achieve solidarity on an essentially imagined basis” (74) on a scale far greater than that of elites of other times and places. Writing and literacy play a central role in this argument. Anderson maintains, as have others, that the main instrument that made bourgeois nationbuilding projects possible was print capitalism. The commercial circulation of books in the various European vernaculars, he argues, was what first created the invisible networks that would eventually constitute the literate elites and those they ruled as nations. (Estimates are that 180 million books were put into circulation in Europe between the years 1500 and 1600 alone.) Now obviously this style of imagining of modern nations, as Anderson describes it, is strongly utopian, embodying values like equality, fraternity, liberty, which the societies 210 often profess but systematically fail to realize. The prototype of the modem nation as imagined community was, it seemed to me, mirrored in ways people thought about language and the speech community. Many commentators have pointed out how modem views of language as code and competence assume a unified and homogeneous social world in which language exists as a shared patrimony–as a device, precisely, for imagining community. An image of a universally shared literacy is also part of the picture. The prototypical manifestation of language is generally taken to be the speech of individual adult native speakers face-to-face (as in Saussures famous diagram) in monolingual, even monodialectal situations-in short, the most homogeneous case linguistically and socially. The same goes for written communication. Now one could certainly imagine a theory that assumed different things–that argued, for instance, that the most revealing speech situation for understanding language was one involving a gathering of people each of whom spoke two languages and understood a third and held only one language in common with any of the others. It depends on what workings of language you want to see or want to see first, on what you choose to define as normative. In keeping with autonomous, fraternal models of community, analyses of language use commonly assume that principles of cooperation and shared understanding are normally in effect. Descriptions of interactions between people in conversation, classrooms, medical and bureaucratic settings, readily take it for granted that the situation is governed by a single set of rules or norms shared by all participants. The analysis focuses then on how those rules produce or fail to produce an orderly, coherent exchange. Models involving games and moves are often used to describe interactions. Despite whatever conflicts or systematic social differences might be in play, it is assumed that all participants are engaged in the same game and that the game is the same for all players. Often it is. But of course it often is not, as, for example, when speakers are from different classes or cultures, or one party is exercising authority and another is submitting to it or questioning it. Last year one of my children moved to a new elementary school that had more open classrooms and more flexible curricula than the conventional school he started out in. A few days into the term, we asked him what it was like at the new school. “Well,” he said, “theyre a lot nicer, and they have a lot less rules. But know why theyre nicer?” “Why?” I asked. “So youll obey all the rules they dont have,” he replied. This is a very coherent analysis with considerable elegance and explanatory power, but probably not the one his teacher would have given. When linguistic (or literate) interaction is described in terms of orderliness, games, moves, or scripts, usually only legitimate moves are actually named as part of the system, where legitimacy is defined from the point of view of the party in authority–regardless of what other parties might see themselves as doing. Teacher-pupil language, for example, tends to be described almost entirely from the point of view of the teacher and teaching, not from the point of view of pupils and pupiling (the word doesn’t even exist, though the thing certainly does). If a classroom is analyzed as a social world unified and homogenized with respect to the teacher, whatever students do other than what the teacher specifies is invisible or anomalous to the analysis. This can be true in practice as well. On several occasions my fourth grader, the one busy obeying all the rules they didn’t have, was given writing assignments that took the form of answering a series of questions to build up a paragraph. These questions often asked him to identify with the interests of those in power over him–parents, teachers, doctors, public authorities. He invariably sought ways to resist or subvert these assignments. One assignment, for instance, called for imagining “a helpful invention.” The students were asked to write single-sentence responses to the following questions: 211 What kind of invention would help you? How would it help you? Why would you need it? What would it look like? Would other people be able to use it also? What would be an invention to help your teacher? What would be an invention to help your parents? Manuel’s reply read as follows: A grate adventchin Some inventchins are GRATE!!!!!!!!!!! My inventchin would be a shot that would put every thing you learn at school in your brain. It would help me by letting me graduate right now!! I would need it because it would let me play with my friends, go on vacachin and, do fun a lot more. It would look like a regular shot. Ather peaple would use to. This inventchin would help my teacher parents get away from a lot of work. I think a shot like this would be GRATE! Despite the spelling, the assignment received the usual star to indicate the task had been fulfilled in an acceptable way. No recognition was available, however, of the humor, the attempt to be critical or contestatory, to parody the structures of authority. On that score, Manuel’s luck was only slightly better than Guaman Poma’s. What is the place of unsolicited oppositional discourse, parody, resistance, critique in the imagined classroom community? Are teachers supposed to feel that their teaching has been most successful when they have eliminated such things and unified the social world, probably in their own image? Who wins when we do that? Who loses? Such questions may be hypothetical, because in the United States in the 1990s, many teachers find themselves less and less able to do that even if they want to. The composition of the national collectivity is changing and so are the styles, as Anderson put it, in which it is being imagined. In the 1980s in many nation-states, imagined national syntheses that had retained hegemonic force began to dissolve. Internal social groups with histories and lifeways different from the official ones began insisting on those histories and lifeways as part of their citizenship, as the very mode of their membership in the national collectivity. In their dialogues with dominant institutions, many groups began asserting a rhetoric of belonging that made demands beyond those of representation and basic rights granted from above. In universities we started to hear, “I dont just want you to let me be here, I want to belong here; this institution should belong to me as much as it does to anyone else.” Institutions have responded with, among other things, rhetorics of diversity and multiculturalism whose import at this moment is up for grabs across the ideological spectrum. These shifts are being lived out by everyone working in education today, and everyone is challenged by them in one way or another. Those of us committed to educational democracy are particularly challenged as that notion finds itself besieged on the public agenda. Many of those who govern us display, openly, their interest in a quiescent, ignorant, manipulable electorate. Even as an ideal, the concept of an enlightened citizenry seems to have disappeared from the national imagination. A couple of years ago the 212 university where I work went through an intense and wrenching debate over a narrowly defined Western-culture requirement that had been instituted there in 1980. It kept boiling down to a debate over the ideas of national patrimony, cultural citizenship, and imagined community. In the end, the requirement was transformed into a much more broadly defined course called Cultures, Ideas, Values. 4 In the context of the change, a new course was designed that centered on the Americas and the multiple cultural histories (including European ones) that have intersected here. As you can imagine, the course attracted a very diverse student body. The classroom functioned not like a homogeneous community or a horizontal alliance but like a contact zone. Every single text we read stood in specific historical relationships to the students in the class, but the range and variety of historical relationships in play were enormous. Everybody had a stake in nearly everything we read, but the range and kind of stakes varied widely. It was the most exciting teaching we had ever done, and also the hardest. We were struck, for example, at how anomalous the formal lecture became in a contact zone (who can forget Atahuallpa throwing down the Bible because it would not speak to him?). The lecturers traditional (imagined) task–unifying the world in the classs eyes by means of a monologue that rings equally coherent, revealing, and true for all, forging an ad hoc community, homogeneous with respect to ones own words–this task became not only impossible but anomalous and unimaginable. Instead, one had to work in the knowledge that whatever one said was going to be systematically received in radically heterogeneous ways that we were neither able nor entitled to prescribe. The very nature of the course put ideas and identities on the line. All the students in the class had the experience, for example, of hearing their culture discussed and objectified in ways that horrified them; all the students saw their roots traced back to legacies of both glory and shame; all the students experienced face-to- face the ignorance and incomprehension, and occasionally the hostility, of others. In the absence of community values and the hope of synthesis, it was easy to forget the positives; the fact, for instance, that kinds of marginalization once taken for granted were gone. Virtually every student was having the experience of seeing the world described with him or her in it. Along with rage, incomprehension, and pain there were exhilarating moments of wonder and revelation, mutual understanding, and new wisdom– the joys of the contact zone. The sufferings and revelations were, at different moments to be sure, experienced by every student. No one was excluded, and no one was safe. The fact that Ro one was safe made all of us involved in the course appreciate the importance of wh.atwe came to call “safe houses.” We used the term to refer to social and intellectual spaces where groups can constitute themselves as horizontal, homogeneous, sovereign communities with high degrees of trust, shared understandings, temporary protectic;mfrom legacies of oppression. This is why, as we realized, multicultural curricula should not seek to replace ethnic or womens studies, for example. Where there are legacies of subordination, groups need places for healing and mutual recognition, safe houses in which to construct shared understandings, knowledges, claims on the world that they can then bring into the contact zone. Meanwhile, our job in the Americas course remains to figure out how to make that crossroads the best site for learning that it can be. We are looking for the pedagogical arts of the contact zone. These will include, we are sure, exercises in storytelling and in identifying with the ideas, interests, histories, and attitudes of others; experiments in transculturation and collaborative work and in the arts of critique, parody, and comparison 213 (including unseemly comparisons between elite and vernacular cultural forms); the redemption of the oral; ways for people to engage with suppressed aspects of history (including their own histories), ways to move into and out of rhetorics of authenticity; ground rules for communication across lines of difference and hierarchy that go beyond politeness but maintain mutual respect; a systematic approach to the all-important concept of cultural mediation. These arts were in play in every room at the extraordinary Pittsburgh conference on literacy. I learned a lot about them there, and I am thankful. WORKS CITED Adorno, Rolena. Guaman Poma de Ayala: Writing and Resistance in Colonial Peru. Austin: U of Texas P, 1986. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1984. Garcilaso de la Vega, El Inca. Royal Commentaries of the Incas. 1613. Austin: U of Texas P, 1966. Guaman Poma de Ayala, Felipe. El primer nueoa cor6nica y buen gobierno. Manuscript. Ed. John Murra and Rolena Adorno. Mexico: Siglo XXI, 1980. Pratt, Mary Louise. “Linguistic Utopias.” The Linguistics of Writing. Ed. Nigel Fabb et al. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1987. 48–66. Trevino, Gloria. “Cultural Ambivalence in Early Chicano Prose Fiction.” Diss. Stanford U, 1985. NOTES 1For an introduction in English to these and other aspects of Guaman Poma’s work, see Rolena Adorno. Adorno and Mercedes Lopez-Baralt pioneered the study of Andean symbolic systems in Guaman Poma. 2 It is far from clear that the Royal Commentaries was as benign as the Spanish seemed to assume. The book certainly played a role in maintaining the identity and aspirations of indigenous elites in the Andes. In the mid-eighteenth century, a new edition of the Royal Commentaries was suppressed by Spanish authorities because its preface included a prophecy by Sir Walter Raleigh that the English would invade Peru and restore the Inca monarchy. 3 The 4 For discussion of community here is summarized from my essay “Linguistic Utopias.” information about this program and the contents of courses taught in it, write Program in Cultures, Ideas, Values (CIV), Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA 94305. A hospitable interlocutor, as seen in the various examples presented in the text, is self-transforming, openly reflective, and courteously sensitive. A close look at De’Von’s profile shows how participants are self- transforming, as his initial profile is a simple summary of himself as a person, including his favorite animal, who he looks up to, etc. However, when given the chance to change this profile, De’Von’s changes demonstrate a new view of the self (or at least how he wanted to be viewed by others). This shows the self-transforming characteristic of a hospitable interlocutor while additionally demonstrating what “self work” is. Examining Jorell’s interaction with Kidnet convey how interlocutors are also openly reflective. Not only was Jorell able to utilize Kidnet’s assets to reflect on his own life, but his willingness to share these reflections with others showed an openness that complements the aforementioned quality of self-transformation. Finally, Monica’s conversations on Kidnet demonstrate the level of sensitivity required to interact with others on Kidnet. This social interaction shows how interlocutors must also understand “respectful communicative norms” to fully participate (93 Hull et al.). Although dystopian views surround social networking in general, Hull et al’s observations show that there is value in virtual interaction, as youth attain various characteristics that mold them into self-transforming, open, reflective, and sensitive individuals. In this way, literacy of social networking could also be valuable in education considering an increasingly interconnected world, though adult supervision should obviously be maintained throughout the process. By introducing students to different communities, viewpoints, and mindsets, we can better prepare them for encountering a contact zone, or where “cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other” (204 Pratt). Theoretically, by giving students an open mindset via interaction with those dissimilar from themselves, youth will be more likely to be respectful when meeting a different culture, as opposed to clashing and grappling. Reflecting on the Kidnet girls’ display of cosmopolitan dispositions to other students on the global platform, to be a hospitable interlocutor online means that one is able to act as a medium in an effective and thoughtful way while engaging in dialogue while looking through a context of global literacy with having an end-goal of reaching a mutual sense of understanding and knowledge between different individuals of different cultures and viewpoints. The whole development of Kidnet helped students from different cultures and countries partake in globalization together as they were able to share music, movies, and engage in culturally-contextual dialogues in which the students were able to examine the similarities and the differences between cultures while being in an open, understanding, and appreciative environment. After reading this article, Kidnet was a successful example of the positive effects of engaging in cultural literacy. Due to this, the article conveys that the process of teaching literacy should comprise of schools and educators attempting to foster a knowledge of living in a “globalized” world with the youths who are in school; which would be along the lines of connecting the world through a sense of “global literacy”: where the children in the educational system can look at global events, issues, and differences between different regions throughout the world-while also learning at how and which schemas of different countries are both intertwined and separated. In a strictly academic scope, one can engage in literacy through academic subjects such as reading comprehension by being able to have the opportunity to read and analyze novels that give rise to a global understanding and literacy. Engaging students in a “contact zone” would require a multicultural environment, where different cultures are able to be illustrated and learned. It is also mentioned in different readings that learning about other cultures requires learning contextual proximity, whether it be learning about the practice of colonialization, slavery, and subjugation of different groups depending on the country and context; and also studying how the effects are still prevalent in present-day and how the effects are manifested. A survey conducted in July 2015 asked a random sample of American adults whether they had ever used online dating. More Information from the Online Dating Survey A survey conducted in July 2015 asked a random sample of American adults whether they had ever used online dating (either an online dating site or a dating app on their cell phone). College-Educated or Not? The survey also asked participants for their level of education, and we wish to estimate the difference in the proportion to use online dating between those with a college degree and those with a hi school degree or less. The results are shown in the two-way table below. College High School Total Yes 157 666 70 565 227 1231 No Total 823 635 1458 Table 1: Have you ever used an online dating site or a dating app?
Purchase answer to see full attachment