11
Diana Masny
University of Ottawa
David R Cole
University of Tasmania
As human beings we marvel at a dance performance, a musical recording, a novel, a film. For instance, take pieces of metal that come together to form a free-standing sculpture. Metal, as in music, dance or film, is a free-flow matter (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). As it stands there, what does metal do? It takes on expressiveness. Similarly, multiple literacies that involve reading the world, word and self take on expressiveness. Words on paper, musical notes on a staff take on sense, expressiveness.
Light, colour, sounds, lines and textures are powers that allow us to perceive worlds but each one is perceived through connections. As Colebrook states (2006, p103), we have colours because of the force of light and sensations that encounter each other just as we have the texture of a canvas through the encounters of light with depth and thickness. Similarly, literacies, through the encounters of letters and words with paper or with a computer, and encounters of notes on a musical staff or sounds that come together, are powers that allow us to perceive/read the world, word and self. It is from continuous investments with these connections that literate individuals are effected. Through a multiple literacies theory such as the one presented in this article, there is potential to release literacy from its privileged position as the printed word by not allowing it to govern all other literacies. In this way, literacies open themselves to what is not already given.
In this article, we foreground Masny’s Multiple Literacies Theory (MLT). Within this perspective, literacies are processes and from investment in 191literacies as processes, transformations occur and becoming other is effected. There are, however, other perspectives on literacies that have been foregrounded, namely New Literacies Studies and Multiliteracies. First, this article is devoted to a brief overview of the New Literacies Studies. Second, the Multiple Literacies Theory developed by Masny (2001) is presented. Third, MLT is linked to Australian education in language and literacies. It includes a discussion of the differences between Multiliteracies (Cope and Kalantzis, 2000) and MLT. Fourth, a case study application of MLT in research in Australia is provided. Fifth, MLT is applied to policy, teaching and research in Canada. Sixth, Masny reconceptualises MLT. Concepts developed within MLT are paradigmatically derived from Deleuze (1990, and 1995) and Deleuze and Guattari (1987, 1994) and presented. Seventh, a case study application of MLT in research in Canada follows. The final section is open to possibilities for lines of flight to create and transform experiences, thereby becoming other than through reading of the world, word and self, i.e. multiple literacies.
Before presenting the Multiple Literacies Theory (MLT), we want to point out that in the research on literacy, important contributions have been advanced by many. I want to focus on the New Literacy Studies (NLS) in order to argue that the paradigmatic position held by NLS is different from the paradigm espoused by MLT. Then, I will present MLT.
The New Literacy studies (Barton, Hamilton and Ivanič, 2002; Gee, 1996; Kim, 2003; Street, 1984, 2003), propose a definition of literacy that takes into account participants’ cultural models of literacy events, social interactional aspects of literacy events, text production and interpretation, ideologies, discourses and institutions (Baynham, 2002). The term ‘event’ within NLS is adapted from Heath (1983) and ethnography of communication. An event refers to any occasion in which engagement with a written text is integral to participants’ interactions and interactive processes (Heath 1983, p93). Texts that involve the interaction between verbal and visual are to be understood as multimodal (New London Group, 1996). The terms, events and texts, 192have been highlighted so as to understand how they are used within NLS.
While there might be surface similarities, in terms of their approaches to the study of literacies (in the plural) from an ideological perspective that sees them as situated historically and socially, they are distinctive in a number of important ways. As you will see shortly, these distinctions are not so much superficial differences between the NLS’s ideological model and MLT, rather they arise in deeper paradigmatic questions that underlie these two perspectives – this point will be raised again in MLT in the Australian context.
MLT was devised with a more critical perspective for social justice (Masny and Ghahremani-Ghajar, 1999). In this version, the concept of literacies refers to literacies as a social construct. As such, literacies are context-specific. They are operationalised or actualised in situ. They take on meaning according to the way a sociocultural group appropriates them. Literacies of a social group are taken up as visual, oral and written. They constitute texts, in a broad sense, that interweave with religion, gender, race, ideology and power.
An individual engages literacies as s/he reads the world, reads the word and reads her/himself. Accordingly, when an individual talks, reads, writes, and values, construction of meaning takes place within a particular context. This act of meaning construction that qualifies as literate is not only culturally driven but also is shaped by sociopolitical and sociohistorical productions of a society and its institutions.
Figure 11.1 presents several literacies which are described below. They are community-based, school-based, personal and critical literacies (Masny, 2005).193
Figure 11.1 Multiple literacies: a conceptual framework
In this conceptual framework, the individual is reading the world, the word and self in the context of the home, school and community (local, national and international). This entails on the part of the individual a personal as well as a critical reading.
In Australia since the 1990s, the social literacy movement of Multiliteracies has been steadily gaining increased leverage and power (Unsworth, 2001). Whilst MLT does share many similarities with multiliteracies as a set of organising principles for literacy provision, it also has major differences that we shall explore here. Unsworth’s (2001) and the New London Group’s (1996) models of multiliteracies have 195been consistent enough to drive the implementation of multiliteracies in Australia, and they act as comparative devices to MLT for this section:
The combined difference of MLT as opposed to multiliteracies as a basis for Australian literacy is that it is a starting point that works multiplicity fully into the system. This means that it has direct consequences for immigrants, indigenous populations or any marginalised community. It transforms the ways in which the mainstream works, as it tends to bring the random forces that are in play in the system into the centre. For example, the continued controversies that surround boys and literacy would be resolved through MLT by constructing units of work that inculcate boys’ desire into the machinery of the literate practices. This does not mean excluding girls’ desire from study, but works to preserve male affect in the classroom to help the boys build their literacy. This is against a backdrop of girls often being more articulate and expressive in their language usage when it comes to emotion and empathy than their young male counterparts (Graham, 2007).197
During 2006, students in northern Tasmania from grades 7–9 (age 11–14) were asked to take part in literacy research. The four schools that accepted the invitation to join in with the research were public institutions from an Australian country town environment. The students were asked to reflect on their literacy learning and make videos articulating their understanding of their literacy progress (n=45). They have used cameras attached to computers in a variety of environments, ranging from a computer at the front of the class, to a computer in a quiet room next to the library. The preliminary results from this research may be analysed using the Deleuze & Guattari empirical framework (Deleuze, 1995), which is an analysis of the sensible and non-sensible aspects of research, the integrated use of experimentation above and beyond the fixed terms of pre-defined categories. This analysis represents a playful and multilayered representation of the self-recorded literacy videos of the students. It is related to MLT through the construction of cam-capture literacy (Cole, 2007) and the following categories are unstable and interlinked cam-capture middle school zones:
MLT doesn’t give us a magic wand to make these students all suddenly value their literacy lessons! It does give us a perspective whereby these ideas may be listened to and understood. Furthermore, MLT is an organising principle that shows us ways of using these student reactions to literacy practices as starting points for learning (Doecke & McClenaghan, 2004). For example, the exploration of boredom as the bedrock of school literacy should act as a springboard to act otherwise and engage ways to articulate the tenets of boredom in every aspect of life.199
The framework is a constant becoming – indeterminate and not fixed. The MLT framework underwent transformation to one mainly influenced by Deleuze (1990, 1995) and Deleuze and Guattari (1987, 1994), in particular as multiple literacies tie into such concepts as desire, subjectivity, difference, investment, reading and deterritorialisation. Each concept will be briefly described in the next section.
Accordingly, Masny’s MLT refers to literacies as texts that take on multiple meanings conveyed through words, gestures, attitudes, ways of speaking, writing, valuing and are taken up as visual, oral, written, and tactile. They constitute texts, in a broad sense (for example, a musical score, a sculpture, a mathematical equation) that fuse with religion, gender, race, culture, and power, and that produce speakers, writers, artists, communities. It is how literacies are coded. These contexts are not static. They are fluid and transform literacies that produce speakers, writers, artists, communities. The meaning of literacy is actualised according to a particular context in time and in space in which it operates. In short, through reading the world, the word and self as texts, literacies constitute ways of becoming with the world. The framework allows for multiple literacies to become other than and consider moving beyond, extending, transforming and creating different and differing perspectives of literacies (Dufresne & Masny, 2005). It is interested in the flow of experiences of life and events from which individuals are formed as literate.
In MLT, by placing the emphasis on how, the focus is on the nature of literacies as processes. Current theories on literacies examine literacies as an endpoint, a product. While MLT acknowledges that books, Internet, 201equations, and buildings are objects, sense emerges when relating experiences of life to reading the world, word and self as texts. Accordingly, an important aspect of MLT is focusing on how literacies intersect in becoming. This is what MLT produces: becoming, that is, from continuous investments in literacies literate individuals are formed.
Acquiring literacies involve different writing systems and create an environment for worldviews to collide because of the sociocultural, political and historical situatedness of learning literacies. Worldviews collide when different values and beliefs about language – about literacies – are introduced as a result of encounters with other literacies. Learning literacies does not take place in a progressive linear fashion. In a Deleuzian way, it happens in response to problems and events that occur in life experiences. Literacies are not merely about language codes to be learned. Learning literacies is about desire, about transformation, becoming other than through continuous investment in reading the world, the word and self as texts in multiple environments (e.g. home, school, community).
The multiple literacies framework is the lens used to examine how competing writing systems in learning a second literacy transform 203children and become other than. Furthermore, putting a line through methodology indicates that the concept and the term are being deterritorialised and reterritorialised as a rhizomatic process that does not engage in methodological considerations in a conventional way. It resists temptations to interpret and ascribe meaning; it avoids conclusions.
The case study involves a 7-year-old girl, Cristelle, in Grade 2 attending a French language school in west Ottawa1. Her family lives in a mainly English-speaking middle class community with a predominance of technology companies. Cristelle’s father is unilingual English while her mother is bilingual, French and English. At home, French is used mostly around school work. Most of the time, the family speaks English. Cristelle was filmed during a French period. An interview followed based on the videotaping that was done earlier. Next, videotaping took place at home during meal time or play time and during reading and writing activities. An interview followed with the family.
Do not look to these vignettes as data and seek to find concrete proof of transformation. Data in the more traditional way is about empirical data. Deleuze and Guattari (1994) have moved away from empiricism because it supposes a foundation grounded on human beings who seek to fix categories and themes. They call upon transcendental empiricism. It transcends experience (immanence). It deals with perceptions and the thought of experience creating connections and becoming other than.
The analyses presented at the end of each vignette are informed by the MLT framework 2002. Square brackets indicate that the utterances are translated from French.
M | Euh, usually after school we’ll start off with French, to do the homework, euh I notice that we switch, I go back and forth and like I’m trying to keep it all in one language. But eum, when I go pick her up at the daycare she doesn’t want to speak French anymore. So I try and continue on in French. So right after school, going into homework exercise. (…) Eum, I when I remember I try to speak to her in French, if she answers me in English, like today we were at the grocery store, I just kept talking her in French, she’ll speak to me English, sometimes ‘cause I’ve noticed she’ll say a sentence like: «aujourd’hui [today] we were at the», like she writes it all up, so she does half and half, and I want her to, like she’d start a sentence. | |
Cr | Who cares? | |
M | And she switches to English. I’ll say: «continue en français [continue in French].» ‘Cause I don’t want her to give up. I want her to to continue so, if if I remember, I do, mostly right after school [***] morning [***]. | |
R | … would you say for Cristelle, when it comes to both languages, she uses more of one than the other. | |
M | Ya, definitely English. (Home 13 March 06) |
In the preceeding vignette, Cristelle’s comment is somewhat revealing. Is it an instance of wanting to unhinge the un/familiar, or perhaps deterritorialise what has been territorialised? Mother’s comments reveal tensions between wanting to have a sound base in French and yet recognising that one language, English, is used more often. From these language and literacy events in a family/community context, the parents and Cristelle are formed as literate and in this process transformed and becoming other than.
Since this study focuses on perceptions of writing systems, Cristelle shares her views regarding writing.
R | [what do you think about your story?] | |
Cr | [that it’s a bit funny, and the drawing is funny] | |
R | [it’s your drawing that’s funny. Yes, but your story, how do you find it?] | |
Cr | [not so funny, because there aren’t many things that are funny]205 | |
R | [what would need to be done for your story to be funny?] | |
Cr | [funny drawings] | |
R | [you would want funny drawings all over?] | |
Cr | [yes!! (with great glee)] | |
R | [but then there isn’t any writing. Is that what you want?] | |
Cr | [yes] | |
R | [you don’t want to write?] | |
Cr | [I don’t want to write] | |
(Class French activity 12 December 05) |
What reading of self is taking place? How is writing and drawing regulated in the classroom? It would seem that deterritorialisation of drawing has been reterritorialised as writing. The boundaries for Cristelle are no longer blurred.
The reading of self seems to resonate with the perceptions that her mother has regarding Cristelle’s writing. [laugh]
P | «Why does salad exist?» | |
Cr | «Why does salad exist?» | |
M | [why does salad exist?] | |
Cr | [Mama is a birdhead.] | |
M | [Mother is a birdhead. It was for interrogative sentences and she wrote, why salad exists and then when I corrected, she didn’t like it. She said, you want me to redo my homework. Because she is frustrated. I am ready to help her.] | |
R | [Is she frustrated because she has errors or?] | |
M | [She is frustrated, she wants to do the sentence in French and she uses oral English borrowings to do it.] | |
M | So, I would say, I put you know: « d’où vient la salade »[where does salad come from], and she goes: «no, you have to write où», où avec le ‘u’ avec. [Then I say it doesn’t work that way. So then gets frustrated] | |
M | J’ai dit: « non ça fonctionne pas comme ça »[I said it doesn’t work that way], so then she gets frustrated. I know it’s it’s partially me, it’s partially her, but I find that she gives up really easily when when she does writing exercises. [And at the moment it doesn’t really interest her.] (Home 13 March 06) |
206Are events and experiences resisting the normative flow and colliding? Are such events wanting to go beyond constituted forms? Thinking is only thinking when it is creative. “Life’s power is best expressed not in the normative but in the perverse, singular and aberrant” (Colebrook, 2006, p20). Is it from these events that Cristelle becomes and multiple literacies are the processes through which becoming happens?
When an individual learns to read/write, the boundaries between what is acceptable and appropriate seem blurred. In the following vignette, Cristelle learns to write. Certain aspects of learning to read/write are connected with previous learning experiences. Other aspects are connected with associations that do not necessarily relate to the writing system or the conventional norm.
R | [last time you had a discussion with Danielle the research assistant and you said you like funny things. What do you mean?] | |||||
Cr | [I like to write like a see a big space] | |||||
R | [would you show me how you wrote this?] video clip | |||||
[h | m | C | ||||
e | i | a | ||||
l | s | l | ||||
l | t | l | ||||
o | e | o | ||||
r | u] | |||||
Cr | [I had one word here and then another there and I continued.] | |||||
R | [what were you trying to say] | |||||
Cr | [hello, my name is Callou] | |||||
R | [and you chose to do it in this way] | |||||
Cr | [because I told Anne, her classmate, to look and Anne said, Cristelle, this not the way to write.] | |||||
R | [and you chose to write this way.] | |||||
Cr | [yes and then after I erased it.]207 | |||||
R | [why did you want to write this way?] | |||||
Cr | [because I like to be funny.] | |||||
R | [what made you change your mind like this and after you erased] | |||||
Cr | [because Mrs Soneau (the teacher) was coming over to see me.] | |||||
R | [when she comes to see you, what do you do?] | |||||
Cr | [she comes to correct] | |||||
R | [she comes to correct and … ] | |||||
Cr | [she looks at my paper] | |||||
R | [and what should you be doing?] | |||||
Cr | [write a story, I mean you need to put the words together, stuck together] | |||||
R | [and so this is what you have to do when she comes. And you don’t like to do that. What do you like to do?] | |||||
Cr | [the same thing as that (pointing to the video clip)] | |||||
R | [do you often do stories like this?] | |||||
Cr | [no]. | |||||
(Class – French activity 12 December 05) |
Is this also an instance of reading the world, word and self, in terms of flow of experiences? What more could Cristelle do given an opportunity? What creativity could unfold? Deleuze states that to create is to resist (1994, p110). Cristelle is creating through the responses of resistance (directionality in writing). Can such events become lines of flight? Colebrook (2002, pxliv) says that events, according to Deleuze, “are seen as creations that need to be selected and assessed according to their power to act and intervene”. As worldviews collide, it is out of multiple literacies that the learner is effected, that some literacy creations/experiences are foregrounded while others are eclipsed.
There are several questions with regard to literacy practices that permeate the research in Canada and Australia. In the Canadian study which focuses on how writing systems operate, the mother has her views and so does Cristelle and these views seem to be on a collision track. The mother’s worldviews in relation to writing could be aligned with normativity. The thought of colliding with Cristelle’s worldviews creates openings or the ‘inbetweenness’ that the mother speaks of (that is, the 208necessity of learning one language first well, and then the realisation that while French is tremendously important, much of what goes on in the house takes place in English). On the other hand, the resistance from Cristelle to writing is apparent. Cristelle’s vignettes provide the thought of worldviews colliding with normativity. These are experiences that transform and becoming other in untimely and unpredictable ways. Writing needs to be fun and amusing, and to mesh with her worldviews. While these experiences are connecting with each other, at times, there is resistance. Cristelle’s resistance is also about creating (hello mister Callou) (for more on resistance, see Dufresne, 2006).
In the Australian case study, like Cristelle, the students do not seem interested in literacy practices, or at least not school-based ones. Can boredom be a form of resistance, boredom as a response to normativity? Worldviews, that of the students, are colliding with the worldview related to school-based literacy. The video became many tools – some connected to making videos about their understanding of literacy, the others took them to an untimely place; tapes of dancing, making shapes with their bodies and using the camera to imitate rhythmic bursts. Was this an instance of seeking stability in their world? Would literacy practices legitimated in school constitute destabilisation? Was this in response to a problem in the making? They connected these sessions with their reading of the world and self. They became texts through the body shapes and rhythm. From investment in these forms of literacy, they are formed and transformed.
In both case studies, there are links to creativity. Thinking is only thinking when it is creative and going beyond already constituted forms. How do such investments create possibilities for becoming since investment in languages and literacies is an investment in difference, in becoming other than? Is it the thought of the blurred boundaries that are challenging views on acquiring multiple languages and multiple literacies?
The multiple literacies theory retained in this article becomes a way to examine how out of complexity and multiplicity, in untimely ways, differences are continuously transforming in becoming other than. In the words of Deleuze and Guattari (1994, p169): “We are not in the world. We become with the world”. In the context of this article, we become with reading the world, the word and self – multiple literacies. 209
Barton D, Hamilton M, Ivanič R (Eds) (2002). Situated Literacies. London: Routledge.
Baynham M (2002).Taking the social turn: The New Literacy Studies and SLA. Ways of Knowing Journal, 2: 43–68.
Canadian Council of Ministers of Education (2003). Pan-Canadian French as a First Language Project: La trousse de francisation [French actualization kit for teachers from Kindergarten to Grade 2]. Toronto www.cmec.ca/else/francisation/cd-rom/inc/info/litteraties.htm
Canadian Federation for Adult Literacy in French (2006). Foundations for the intervention in Family literacy: the case for developing multiple literacies. Ottawa.
Cole D R (2007). Cam-Capture: An Eye on Teaching and Learning. In J Sigafoos and V Green (Eds), Technology & Teaching: A Casebook for Educators, (pp55–68). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Colebrook C (2002). Deleuze. New York: Routledge.
Colebrook C (2006). Deleuze: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Continuum.
Cope B, Kalantzis M (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. South Yarra: Macmillan Publishers.
Cope B, Kalantzis M (1995). Productive Diversity: Organisational Life in the Age of Civic Pluralism and Total Globalisation. Sydney: Harper Collins.
Deleuze G (1990). The Logic of Sense. (M Lister, Trans. with C Stivale). New York: Columbia University Press.
Deleuze G (1995). Negotiations 1972–1990 (M Joughin, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Deleuze G, Guattari F (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism & Schizophrenia Part II (B Massumi, Trans.). London: Athlone Press.
Deleuze G, Guattari F (1994). What is philosophy? (H Tomlinson & G Burchell, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.210
Doecke B, McClenaghan D (2004). Reconceptualising experience – growth pedagogy and youth culture. In W Sawyer & E Gold (Eds), Reviewing English in the 21st century, (pp51–60). Sydney: Phoenix Education.
Dufresne D (2006). Exploring the processes in becoming biliterate. International Journal of Learning, 12(8): 347–354.
Dufresne T & Masny D (2005). Different and differing views on conceptualizing writing system research and education. In V Cook et B Bassetti (Eds), Second Language Writing Systems. Clevedon, Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Fiumara G C (2001). The mind’s affective life; a psychoanalytic and philosophical inquiry. Hove: Brunner-Routledge.
Freire P, Macedo D (1987). Literacy. Westport, Conn: Bergin &Garvey.
Gee J P (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses, 2nd Edn. London: Taylor & Francis.
Graham L (2007). Done in by discourse … or the problem/s with labelling. In M Keefe & S Carrington (Eds), Schools and Diversity, 2nd Edition, (pp46–65). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Goodchild P (1996). Deleuze and Guattari: An Introduction to the Politics of Desire. London: Sage Publications.
Heath S B (1983). Ways with words: language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kim J (2003). Challenges to NLS – Response to “What’s ‘new’ in New Literacy Studies” [Electronic version]. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5. www.tc.columbia.edu/cice/articles/jk152.htm
Kress G, van Leuwen T (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Meia of Contemporary Communication. London: Hodder Arnold Publication.
Masny D, Ghahremani-Ghajar S S (1999). Weaving multiple literacies: Somali children and their teachers in the context of school culture. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 12(1): 72–93.211
Masny D (2001). Pour une pédagogie axée sur les littératies [Toward a pedagogy based on literacies]. In D Masny (ed), La culture de l’écrit: les défis à l’école et au foyer, (pp15–26). Montréal: les éditions Logiques.
Masny D (2005). Multiple literacies: An alternative OR beyond Friere. In J Anderson, T Rogers, M Kendrick & S Smythe (eds), Portraits of literacy across families, communities, and schools: Intersections and tensions (p71–84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Masny D (2006). Learning and Creative processes: a Poststructural Perspective on Language and Multiple Literacies. International Journal of Learning, 12(5): 147–155.
Ministry of Education (Alberta). (1999a). Kindergarten French First Language programme www.education.gov.ab.ca/french/maternelle/francophone/fr_mat.pdf
Ministry of Education (Alberta). (1999b). Kindergarten immersion programme. Edmonton http://ednet.edc.gov.ab.ca/french/Maternelle/immersion/intro.pdf
Ministry of Education (Alberta) (2001) Affirming Francophone Education: Foundations and Direction. Edmonton. www.education.gov.ab.ca/french/m_12/franco/affirmer/CadreENG.pdf
Ministry of Education (Manitoba) (2003). Immersion Kindergarten Social Sciences curriculum. Manitoba. www.edu.gov.mb.ca/frpub/ped/sh/dmoimm_1re/introduction.pdf
New London Group (1996). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1): 60–92.
Parisi L (2004). Abstract Sex: Philosophy, Bio-technology and the mutations of desire. London: Continuum Books.
Street B (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Street B (2003). What’s new in the New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2): 77–91. www.tc.columbia.edu/cice/Archives/5.2/52street.pdf
Unsworth L (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
1 This study was funded through a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and the Official Languages Dissemination Program.204