-Drawing on Brandt's definition of literacy sponsor, list as many of Malcolm X's literacy sponsors as you can find. Remember that sponsors don't have to be people, but can also be ideas or institutions, that can withhold literacy as well as provide it.
-Brandt explains that people often subvert or misappropriate the intentions of their sponsors. Was this ever the case with Malcolm X? How so?
In our first brainstorming journal, my ENC 1102 class read about "literacy sponsors" from an article created by Deborah Brandt. Within her work, she discussed how literacy worked in the 20th century and how it adapted to our society today. Also she describes the relationship established between a sponsor and the person receiving "aid". In response to reading the article we answered a set of questions, which are as followed:
-How does Brandt define a literacy sponsor? What are several particular characteristics of a literacy sponsor she offers throughout the article?
-Why des Brandt claim that sponsors always have something to gain from their sponsorship? What does this motivation have to do with Brandt's finding that the sponsored sometimes "misappropriate" their literacy lessons?
-Offer at least two examples of how literacy sponsors can gain from their sponsorship, and then develop at least two examples from your own experience.
Here was my answers to these questions:
Deborah Brandt seems to describe a literacy sponsor as, “any agents..who enable, support, teach, model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress or withhold literacy.” In simpler terms, a sponsor of literacy uses literacy as a way of means to often gain an advantage, but at the same time it can uphold or draw back from real literacy. Common sponsors of literacy implicitly demand for viewers or readers’ loyalty and attention. Brandt also noted for sponsors to be “delivery systems” as they also push forward an economic motive while advancing literacy. She felt that this was often why people chose to grasp literacy, thus leading to sponsors regulating literacy. This also leads as to why sponsors become actual sponsors. Brandt attributes the literacy process almost like a trade system. The receiver and sponsor both gain an edge, giving them an incentive to trade, whether it is monetary, knowledge, or other items. However, since the sponsor obviously has the power to distort the power fluctuation, their control turns into what Brandt calls “misappropriation”. This process occurs when a sponsorship is troubled by their funders, therefore the sponsor alters the balance of power to their advantage and then they gain higher literacy opportunities leading to a higher probability of economics prosperity. One example of how literacy sponsors can gain an advantage from their sponsorship includes an event drawn up within the article. In earlier days, Protestant Sunday Schools offered free education until parents became infuriated and demanded more intensive course work to gain a literacy leap forward. This works because the parents are the sponsors by allowing their children to go to these churches and basically own the power to leave. Another example is in the article, where it mentions how Baptist and Methodist ministries were sponsors for African Americans, and they allowed the literacy path for the slaves to eventually take up religion and education and pass it around with their people. But this led to smarter slaves, which could work for the ministries, giving an advantage to actually both. One example from my own experience would involve the relationship between my professors and myself. Not only do I grasp knowledge from his/her specific course but they also learn from me as I reflect on their material in my own perspective. Another example would include the sponsorship between my job and I. Where I work, I input labor into my company which in turn brings the company money, however the labor is multiplied to a lot more than the wage I receive, showing how the company’s sponsor power is dominant in this sponsorship relationship.
0 comments:
Post a Comment