Return-Path: <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g7QHbmX01882; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:37:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:37:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <sd6a12c8.028@nmail.epcc.edu> Errors-To: alcrsb@langate.gsu.edu Reply-To: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Andres Muro" <AndresM@epcc.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:2243] Re: What are the main issues X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.5 Status: O Content-Length: 2333 Lines: 35 In a later message I suggested that literacy can use to liberate just as it can use to oppress. If literacy is going to be used for liberation this must be articulated clearly. The curriculum should also contain specific materials targeted to do this. Sometimes you see literature stating that the purpose of literacy is to prepare people to function in society and to fulfill their jobs as citizens. If that society is oppressive, in essence the statement implies that literacy is to reproduce the existing oppressive system since we want to have citizens function in the society and be good citizens. This usually means not bitching about the fact that they are oppressed and want change. We need mission statements that propose participation and action for change instead of just functioning. So we need to articulate that the purpose of literacy is to liberate people from oppression of systems of poverty, sexism, racism, classism, etc. We also need content in the curriculum that addresses the fact that people are in fact oppressed and ways in which they can struggle to overcome their oppression. Andres >>> sylvan@cccchs.org 08/26/02 11:15AM >>> At 12:29 PM 08/23/2002 -0400, Andres Muro wrote: ><SNIP> >Literacy work in this country should be antipoverty work. However it is >not. It is supposed to be a vehicle for individuals to escape poverty >through heir own effort since it is believe that it is their own actions >that placed them in poverty in the first place. > >So, to me, the principal issue regarding women and literacy has to do with >the entire field not working towards systematic change against poverty. I love this! It really struck a chord with me. But I'm unclear about how to do this. I've ended up just doing my best to work on an individual level with students who come into my program, along with some organizing with other groups who are trying also to serve the Hispanic population in our county. That feels like as much as I can do, and it's very satisfying as I see lives change and women learn to negotiate the system to help themselves and their families. What would systematic change against poverty look like? -------------------------------------------------------------- Sylvan Rainwater . sylvan@cccchs.org Clackamas County Children's Commission Portland, OR USA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:45:45 EST