Reading Response #11

          "Sponsors of Literacy" is an article written by Deborah Brandt, for College Composition and Communication (possibility targeting college students that are aiming to improve their composition), that takes a look at the increased importance, or expectations, on the "economic development" (334) of literacy writing throughout the 20th century through one specific conclusion: "sponsor of literacy." (334)  To Brandt, sponsors, those who are "powerful figures who bankroll events or smooth the way for initiates," (335) "deliver the ideological freight that must be borne for access," (335) meaning that a person's life--surroundings, job, sex, personality, and the social context they live in--is depended on the sponsor's willingness to provide not only a situational context for a moment in a person's life, but to also provide "the most tangible aspects--material supply, explicit teaching, institutional aegis." (348) Therefore, people in various socioeconomic classes can be involved with any sort of these sponsors, despite their difference of abilities and personal frustrations they might face; a "relatively accessible economy of institutional and commercial supports" (338) that depends on what they get themselves into at a certain place in a certain time.        

          Relating to other articles, I can see some similarities in Bill Bryson's "Good English and Bad," in that compared to Brandt's point that differences in writing can trace back to a rise in literacy expectations, along with various context a person might experience, and uses interviews she conducted to provide her point, Bryson would say that the reason for those differences of writing would be because of the rules themselves, based on the Latin language, where the language "in which the parts of speech are almost entirely notional." (61) To Bryson, this problem, the inability of anybody to grasps the textuality of English, lead various authors to come up with their own writings on how to approach the language (and allowing others to apply their writings for their own theories on writing) that can eventually produce satisfying grammar for readers alike, while Brandt would point out that the battle of a person's background and the raised literacy standards beyond its' control would only make that person apply those writings to satisfy general readers alike, but to the sponsors themselves to keep whatever work that person has with what he or she can grasp with their own literacy skills. In other words, Brandt noticed that the writers she knew had "dramatic changes" based on the subject's pasts and current work conditions, while Bryson wrote that the authors from his text wrote not for a goal in mind, but to figure out a condition of English language that can satisfy many writers themselves; a concept still in debate today.

Thinking about the ways my culture (and local community) encourages--and emphasize--writing, it usually boils down to a few ideals. For the purposes of this list, the following quotes are not actually quotes, but ideals I've noticed masqueraded as quotes for general purposes:

-"Reading complicates the mind beyond where we would like to have it, so unless the text deal with [X], why bother?"
-"I want to become a writer myself, so the more I read, the better a writer I can be!"
-"These students are in danger of becoming of what they shouldn't be, so as a class, I better alert them of concepts in [X] for them to learn to become [Y]."
-"I do not like the idea of [X], so here's a proposal--[Y]--to make [X] simpler to use."
-"I have to read [X] to get a good grade/make my boss happy. If I'm lucky, I'll at least get the bare minimum."
-"this makes no sense"
-"I like what [author] did at [event in book], when it turns out [what character thought/worked/did]"
-"[X] deal with [Concept]. Therefore, [Object] symbolizes [X] because of [more info on X] [example] [concept of x] [example] [concept x] [example] [concept x] [conclusion of x]"


Going by the list, it seems like those who stress good writers/readers--authoritative figures such as teachers, professors, literate family members, and corporations bosses--empathizes thinking on behalf of the readers themselves, so that the more the student learns about the whys and hows in regards to writing, they can understand the purpose of the text. As such, various tools such as grammar, spelling, and writing constructs are taught to allow those readers reach at their conclusions in a clear, conceive matter that can satisfy everyone involved with that specific writing.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

         Using the categories (race and class impact), I would say my primary literacy sponsors were the following:

-Teachers (academic)
-Parents (civic)
-Peers (social)
-Books (assigned by teachers or my own free will) (academic, social, civic)
-Internet (see above) (academic, social, civic)


So, in some way, class impact and race had some say in my literacy sponsorship, but in reality, social impact and my own free will had more of an influence. Were they adequate? Yes. Any regrets? No. Anything I wished I learned from them? Nothing's coming to mind, so. not at this moment.

          From what I can recall, no literacy sponsors withheld certain kinds of literates. Yes, there were "approved reading lists in school," but I would argue that was due to a social context rather than authoritative control, where an academic setting refuses us to read certain books and read other books for their own gain. No, the "lists" were generally there for us, the students, to read for us to take away themes and subjects that we wouldn't otherwise bother reading in our spare times, and generally, the majority of students had no such interest and would try to make the best of the situation and craft something that would at least appeal to the teacher. For those students who actually took the work seriously, my assumption is that they would pace out their time spent on their own social lives and the text within, and when the time comes to work, they would pace themselves for less exhaustion on their mental capabilities. However, I do remember seeing other students reading whatever captured their interest during lunch, and despite social rumblings from my peers, I would sometimes read "certain kinds of books" during some periods of class and allow anyone who was interested share those books if curiosity strikes (and it did happen occasionally). So to answer the question, if seen in a certain way, a big literacy sponsor "forced certain kinds of literates" on me, but in a boarder sense, I never had problems with reading any kinds at all, and even then I don't see the reading lists as a withheld literacy either (it was really a "necessary evil" if anything).

          All in all, the article proposed a topic I have a interest in: literacy is tied to whatever sponsor the writer has to personally satisfy, and if the circumstances around him change, then he has to change with it, or either has to change along with it, or resist that ideology and move on to a different path neither he or the sponsor expects. If Brandt intended to write the article as why these sponsors has importance in our lives that we, the people, might never notice in the first place, where our writing can actually improve under them instead of being conformed to be like them, then she had my interest throughout the entire point, and I would have no qualms of agreeing with her idea. I wish she would of tied her point and her examples in a more concise matter (I'm not sure on how literacy sponsor can create "both a sanctioning force and a reserve of ideological and material support" (347); maybe Brandt could of clarified her "statistical correlation"(336) more specially to other economic classes), but as the article stands, I enjoyed the time spent reading it.