“Usually richer, more knowledgeable, and more entrenched
than the sponsored, sponsors nevertheless enter a reciprocal relationship with
those they underwrite” (335).
Brant
brings up an interesting point that can easily be forgotten when one thinks
about sponsors: the fact that they too gain something from their sponsored.
“Like Little Leaguers who wear the logo of a local insurance
agency on their uniforms, not out of a concern for enhancing the agency’s image
but as a means for getting to play ball, people throughout history have
acquired literacy pragmatically under the banner of others’ causes” (335).
I love
this metaphor. It clearly illustrates and foreshadows Brandt’s point of
misappropriation.
“…obligations toward one’s sponsors run deep, affecting
what, why, and how people write and read” (335).
Brant
tells us to what extent sponsors exert power over the literacy of their
subjects.
“The competition to harness literacy, to manage, measure,
teach, and exploit it, has intensified throughout the century. It is vital to
pay attention to this development because it largely sets the terms for
individuals’ encounters with literacy” (336).
The
competition between sponsors in an ever-changing world is an important idea to
comprehend if one is going to fully understand Brandt’s narrative of Lowery.
“Recession, relocation, immigration, technological change,
government retreat all can—and do—condition the course by which literate
potential develops” (339).
Brant
enumerates the reasons why literacy or the value of a particular literacy can
change for an individual.
“A consummate debater and deal maker, Lowery saw his value
to the union bureaucracy subside, as power shifted to younger,
university-trained staffers whose literacy credentials better matched the
specialized forms of escalating pressure coming from the other side” (342).
This
illustrates the competition between sponsors that Brandt discussed earlier.
Also, it touches on the “escalating pressure” being put on literacy, as each
sponsor essentially tries to one-up the previous (oral deals to basic legal
document drafting to wholly text driven interactions in union deals).
“…strong loyalties outside the workplace prompted these two
secretaries to lift these literate resources for use in other spheres” (345).
Brandt
shows how two secretaries used the literacies they acquired from their male
bosses/literary sponsors to help them in their personal endeavors of faith and
family.
“Mary Christine Anderson estimated that secretaries might
encounter up to 97 different genres in the course of doing dictation or
transcription” (345).
Talk
about a thorough education! It seems like secretaries should rule the world
with all of the literacies they were potentially exposed to.
“Interestingly, these roles, deeply sanctioned within the
history of women’s literacy—and operating beneath the newer permissible
feminine activity of clerical work—become grounds for covert, innovative
appropriation even as they reinforce traditional female identities” (347).
I love
the secretary narratives. I agree with Brandt on the irony of women being
agents of their own literacies all within the accepted feminine framework of
the workplace and home life.
“Sarah Steele’s act of appropriation in some sense explains how dominant forms of
literacy migrate and penetrate into private spheres, including private
consciousness” (348).
This
sounds a little like big brother is watching us, but I think this is one of
Brandt’s more important asides. She also mentions earlier how the plethora of
college graduates within our society has pervaded and changes our literacies.
“What I have tried to suggest is that as we assist and study
individuals in pursuit of literacy, we also recognize how literacy is in
pursuit of them” (348).
Brandt’s
cleverly worded sentence makes us very aware of the various sponsorships of
literacies.
No comments:
Post a Comment