Fairclough argues that the evolving nature of our cultures and world makes critical language awareness (CLA) vital for people to be able to actively participate in global capitalism and politics. These changes also call for revision and reconsideration of education, specifically in critical discourse awareness (CDA). By providing examples of the ideologically motivated discourse of flexibility of contemporary economics, this author also shows how knowledge of CLA can empower the workforce.
To support his assertion about the significance of CLA, Fairclough discusses key elements of late modern society, including the relationship between discourse, knowledge, and social change in our knowledge-based society; our contemporary social life’s textually-mediated nature; commodification of semiotics and discourse; and discourse’s narrowing effect on democracy. He concludes by challenging the dominant view of education where students are consumers of knowledge and skills (rather than active, critical participants) and discourse is reduced to a skill transmitted to the students (rather than an understanding that is questioned and examined together).
Foucault and Bakhtin’s influences seem to leave their fingerprints throughout the text, in Farichough’s description of the commodification of discourse (Foucault) and his view of texts as ad-mixtures of pre-existing genres/texts, which are informed by different discourses (Bakhtin). His argument for CLA anchored in CDA is especially relevant in our media-filled modern world. Our textually mediated social lives have us sitting in front of, wearing, using, listening to, singing, and carrying discourse and texts around everyday, all day; therefore, it is of particular importance that we educate ourselves on and reflect on what we see, hear, and say using and sharing educational resources to intentionally place ourselves on “the dialectic between the global and the local” (151).
I couldn’t help but contribute this marginalia at several points in the chapter: “Oprah.” I first wrote this when he writes of “expert advice” and “expert systems” (149). When she was still on everyday at 4:00, it seemed like Oprah would have one of her “experts” to tell us what we as a general public were doing “wrong” or “right.” Dr. Oz informed us on our health, Dr. Phil on our psyche, Nate on decorating, Rachel on cooking… Oprah even told us what books to read and what to think about them. It seems like my mom would watch and take on a new belief system each week according to who was on this show, “constantly reshaping [her] social practices on the basis of knowledge about [Oprah’s] practices” (149).
The other section that seemed to scream “Oprah!” was the commodification of discourse. Oprah appeared to be the source of many people’s “quality control,” and her selling power was greater than many other “brands.” The book The Secret is particularly significant in the context of Fairclough. This “one-size-fits-all” key to happiness and fulfillment stayed on the bestseller list for a long time, offering what Fairclough may describe as a “general formula for change which [tends] to ignore differences in context” (152).
With my background in education, I found Fairclough’s comments on education and identities intriguing. His statements about our educational practices are particularly relevant with the implementation of the Common Core in schools across the country along with our current tradition of standardization (of tests, curriculum…). So I decided to try and draw how Fairclough may see our public school system (see attachment).
While drawing it, I noticed how much easier and simpler it was to draw the stick figures that were all the same rather than the ones that were all different. With the same head, arms, legs… I didn’t have to put much thought into that aspect, but in the other, diverse parts of the drawing, I had to be sure to pay careful attention. I wondered if that is one reason Fairclough described the transmission of knowledge and skills and homogenization of culture as “determinate, uncontested, and given externally to the learner” (156). If we pretend students are all the same, “teaching” is easier and simpler for the schools in the short run.
Although I have some ideas, I do wonder what
To support his assertion about the significance of CLA, Fairclough discusses key elements of late modern society, including the relationship between discourse, knowledge, and social change in our knowledge-based society; our contemporary social life’s textually-mediated nature; commodification of semiotics and discourse; and discourse’s narrowing effect on democracy. He concludes by challenging the dominant view of education where students are consumers of knowledge and skills (rather than active, critical participants) and discourse is reduced to a skill transmitted to the students (rather than an understanding that is questioned and examined together).
Foucault and Bakhtin’s influences seem to leave their fingerprints throughout the text, in Farichough’s description of the commodification of discourse (Foucault) and his view of texts as ad-mixtures of pre-existing genres/texts, which are informed by different discourses (Bakhtin). His argument for CLA anchored in CDA is especially relevant in our media-filled modern world. Our textually mediated social lives have us sitting in front of, wearing, using, listening to, singing, and carrying discourse and texts around everyday, all day; therefore, it is of particular importance that we educate ourselves on and reflect on what we see, hear, and say using and sharing educational resources to intentionally place ourselves on “the dialectic between the global and the local” (151).
I couldn’t help but contribute this marginalia at several points in the chapter: “Oprah.” I first wrote this when he writes of “expert advice” and “expert systems” (149). When she was still on everyday at 4:00, it seemed like Oprah would have one of her “experts” to tell us what we as a general public were doing “wrong” or “right.” Dr. Oz informed us on our health, Dr. Phil on our psyche, Nate on decorating, Rachel on cooking… Oprah even told us what books to read and what to think about them. It seems like my mom would watch and take on a new belief system each week according to who was on this show, “constantly reshaping [her] social practices on the basis of knowledge about [Oprah’s] practices” (149).
The other section that seemed to scream “Oprah!” was the commodification of discourse. Oprah appeared to be the source of many people’s “quality control,” and her selling power was greater than many other “brands.” The book The Secret is particularly significant in the context of Fairclough. This “one-size-fits-all” key to happiness and fulfillment stayed on the bestseller list for a long time, offering what Fairclough may describe as a “general formula for change which [tends] to ignore differences in context” (152).
With my background in education, I found Fairclough’s comments on education and identities intriguing. His statements about our educational practices are particularly relevant with the implementation of the Common Core in schools across the country along with our current tradition of standardization (of tests, curriculum…). So I decided to try and draw how Fairclough may see our public school system (see attachment).
While drawing it, I noticed how much easier and simpler it was to draw the stick figures that were all the same rather than the ones that were all different. With the same head, arms, legs… I didn’t have to put much thought into that aspect, but in the other, diverse parts of the drawing, I had to be sure to pay careful attention. I wondered if that is one reason Fairclough described the transmission of knowledge and skills and homogenization of culture as “determinate, uncontested, and given externally to the learner” (156). If we pretend students are all the same, “teaching” is easier and simpler for the schools in the short run.
Although I have some ideas, I do wonder what