Lunsford Interviews Anzaldúa
Some of Anzaldúa’s—or at least Lunsford’s interpretations—ideas do not make sense to me. Please help me understand. When Lunsford writes that Anzaldúa means, “it is possible to take in the labels of society to transform them, to find all others in one’s self; one’s self in all others” (44), I am unsure how this paradigm works. By transforming, does she mean creating new semantics from existing symbols and symbol systems? By finding all others in one’s self mean some kind of generalization about being human—that we all have something inherently in common? What is finding one’s self in all others? Is this projection?
Another thing I am confused about is the notion that we should “tolerate contradictions” and “tolerate ambiguity.” Is it fair to tolerate in all conditions? For instance do we tolerate a mother-in-law’s insistence that she loves her daughter-in-law’s visual image in a couple’s portrait though later the son finds this image ripped in two so that the son is now the featured visual image? And here’s me being silly—does contradiction bring to mind binary oppositions? How about “multradictions”?
Also, when I read “Until I am free to write bilingually and to switch codes without having to translate…my tongue will be illegitimate” (46), I want to know more about this context. Does this mean free to be published and earn money? Is her freedom capitalistic? Or is it more a comment on educational systems and the privilege of academic discourse?
Finally, for one who seems to be a social constructionist, I find it funny she states in comparing her sense of identity to students states, “ You and I have already passed mid-life. We can have a sense of identity and of self that is not so much based on other people’s reactions anymore” (61). It is not just age that has done this. It is her success and her power, which allows for this ability to this sense of identity. Moreover, this indifference to “people’s reactions” is not accurate. My assumption regarding identity and self is that it is always informed by audience—other people’s reactions.
Monroe’s Works
What is “critical literacy” exactly? And whatever “critical literacy” is is it an occidental construct?
I was thinking about how I would add to the classroom implications section. I think that instead of just talking and writing about movies, students should storyboard and create movies. I don’t know. I reckon instead of being vicarious about movies, it might help to experience this sort of textual production. If access to technology is a problem, I think plays, theatre, acting might be another way to approach writing for those with a more developed TV or film literacy.
intertextual communications
Considering Hall’s notion of a “grammar of race” (103), I was wondering if race can be defined as a symbol system. Can it? What does it read like?
