This book began by describing its content as a kind a journey, one that brought together classrooms, language and ethnography to create a new perspective on literacy. Language in education in general, and literacy in particular, have been at the core of our concerns in producing it. In the Introduction, we acknowledged the long history of research and scholarship into education and language, and language in education. We also recognised the shift in research perspectives in each of these fields that took place from the mid-century point, and the impact that this orientation had on methodology, theory and practice. There is little doubt that classroom based research increasingly took on qualitative approaches from this time; ones which looked at the ‘culture’ of classrooms. Yet, so-called ‘naturalistic’ research had less impact on language research in general, and language in education specifically, preoccupied as it often was with the form of pedagogic discourse and the structure of utterances. The rise of New Literacy Studies was an early acknowledgement of the necessity to view language in education through a socio-historic lens. In order to do so, some kind of anthropological approach was necessitated, and has indeed been realised in various attempts at classroom language ethnographies. However, such ethnographic perspectives raise issues of theory, practice and method. Ultimately, the aim of this book has been to develop these aspects of literacy research from both a NLS and Bourdieusian perspective.
Therefore, as well as a journey, the book can in some respects also be understood as a kind of ‘meeting point’ – of different traditions, perspectives and approaches. Part I presented three of these: Ethnography, New Literacy Studies and Bourdieu's sociology. The first chapter on ethnography offered an account of many of its basic tenets, and the way language needed to be seen as central to its concerns. However, the chapter also highlighted the complexity of issues involved and the scope for individual interpretation and adoption. As noted at different parts of the book, this breadth of approach has occasionally led to diametrically opposed visions of just what it is to be ‘ethnographic’, with certain of its defining principles openly contested by those working in the field. The second chapter on New Literacy Studies considered just where it came from, its raison d’être, and why it was needed. We have seen the contrast that needs to be drawn between an ‘autonomous’ view of literacy and a more socio-culturally sensitive one. It has been noted that there is in fact no such thing as ‘literacy’ in the singular, but multiple forms of literacy, each of which has their own field of practice. It is in understanding such ‘fields of practice’ that ethnographic approaches have shown themselves most useful. However, and partly because of its polyvalent nature, ethnography can lead to an overly personalised approach to language in education; one which makes use of a range of narrative material – poetics, politics, fiction, visuals, personal accounts, and classroom realia – in its accounts. Such different perspectives and methods can lead to fragmentation of research practice, and the basic principles of science underpinning it. The use of Bourdieu has therefore partly been to provide a surer epistemological base: one with a more explicit theoretical underpinning and established research practice. The consequent aims are two-fold: first, to offer a more philosophically rooted version of ethnography, and therefore one with a more epistemologically charged set of concepts and methods; second, and by doing so, to extend and deepen insights into literacy events which conventional qualitative approaches do not provide. The third chapter in Part I presented the background to Bourdieu and gave account of the main principles lying behind his theory of practice.
Part II of the book presented a series of researchers working, in various combinations, with language in education in a socio-culturally sensitive way, thus coming from a New Literacy Studies background and, to a greater or lesser extent drawing on angles and perspectives emerging from an engagement with the work of Pierre Bourdieu. The LETTER project in Chapter 5 highlighted distinct cultural relations between the Dalit women under discussion, those involved in ‘training’ them, and the UK-based researchers occupied in working with both. We saw the way that the unconscious can be made conscious, how fundamental aspects of communication were involved in the subordinate and super-ordinate positions created by the structural relations established between internal and external literacy forms, and the way these were played out in educational contexts. Here, we saw that the issue is not so much that particular literacy events are arbitrary in terms of underlying values, but that such values always need to be seen as a symbolic expression of the particular interests that generate them in the first place. We have noted Bourdieu's claim that the purpose of his brand of social philosophy was indeed to see the world in a new way – a ‘new gaze’ – what he termed ‘metanoia’. This ‘new sight’ is apparent in our understanding of the literacy events of the Dalit women, but also involved both the trainers and the researchers working with them. A new way of seeing things is also evident in the creative art project described in Chapter 6. Here, the structural relations inherent in the classroom, it surrounding external context, and the policy world of power enshrined in official documents is clearly influential in what actually occurs in classroom practice. We saw the way that both this external context and the ‘pedagogic habitus’ of the teachers involved can be observed in terms of being ‘sedimented’ in literacy events embedded in the classroom discourse; in other words, actualised in practice. Creativity then arises in this ‘coming together’ of these sources and the (often) clash that takes place in their interaction. As a consequence, we saw how methodologically it was necessary first to ‘re-conceptualise’ classroom language ethnography in terms of field relations and the structural articulation of principles of practice set up between them. Moreover, that we need to concern ourselves with the particular habitus of those involved in the actual literacy event; in other words, the generating structures of individuals which, although derived from their own socio-cultural background, predispose them to think and act in certain (creative) ways in the face of present imperatives and necessities.
Habitus was also at the centre of the Chapter 7, where individual students worked on an Odyssey theme in a series of autobiographical films. Here, the innovative nature of the project set it outside the conventional demands of official curricula; indeed, this approach was somewhat justified by the fact that the students involved were deemed as underachieving in established school practices. What emerged is a series of individual stories, themselves expressing ‘slices of life’ – a kind of ‘fractal habitus’. We can see the process underlying the project as an externalisation of aspects of life-history – of ‘fractal habitus’ – and thus their re-internalisation as a form of reintegration. In Bourdieusian terms, this would be seen as an Objectivation of Subjectivity which, once objectified is re-subjectified as part of the artistic engagement. One of the features of Chapters 6 and 7 is the reflexive nature of the researchers’ relationship with the object of research. In Chapter 6 we saw the distinct perspectives emerging between the teacher involved and the researcher. Chapter 7 also has the researcher reflecting on her own position within the research, and thus the different views to be found between those involved. The studies to be found in Part II are real-life empirical events. They sometimes lack uniformity of approach and they are occasionally partial or messy in their actuality. However, they do provide us with the means to objectify the main elements of our classroom language ethnography from a Bourdieusian perspective. Consequently, they demonstrate the way that Bourdieu provides us with an understanding that is both stable but dynamic, and that concepts such as field and habitus are central for exploring the relations inherent in the language classroom. These concepts are also at the core of the literacy events described in Chapter 8. Here, once again, is the issue of the relation and values at play in a classroom where the pupils and teachers do not come from the ‘dominant culture’. The authors here describe a kind of ‘improvisation’ or play being set up between the legitimate and the illegitimate, the consecrated and the non-consecrated forms through which the values of conformity and non-conformity are expressed. Such value products amount to ‘cultural capital’ in Bourdieu's terms; in other words, the medium for entry to and exclusion from what is considered acceptable in terms of literacy. As highlighted in Chapter 10, the fact that this relation implies certain dilemmas of belief and behaviour on the part of the students – what Bourdieu calls a ‘double bind’ necessitated by the demands for a ‘double consciousness’ – needs also to be understood in terms of the extra level of socio-cultural ambidexterity demanded from these students if they are to remain true to themselves and their background whilst embracing the dominant culture of the classroom; one which will eventually lead to their ultimate destiny in terms of academic success or failure.
It is evident that Parts I and II include an enormous amount of material; both principled and empirical. Indeed, we might view these in terms of a whole series of dichotomous oppositions: fact and fiction; discussion and exemplification; routine and method. However, at base, these are essentially about individuals involved within a social context: And, here, there is a new set of relations to be seen in terms of structures and the values inherent in them: researcher and teacher; teacher and student; classroom and schools; schools and government policies. Fundamentally, what all these dualities involve, however, are issues of empiricism and science; in other words, how do we capture the real world and present it in an authentic manner – in all its complexity and sophistication – and express that representation in a way that is objective, and liable to public scrutiny? This question lies at the heart of Part III.
We began this part with a chapter that concerned itself with the polyvalent nature of theory within a social context such as education. Here, we saw that it was not just a question of the character of theory, but its provenance, what could and could not be expressed in theory, and the essential characteristics of different forms of theory. Once, again, structural relations lay at the core of the discussion: between the individuals concerned, their location in time and place, their activity, and intentions. The practical chapters of Part II furnished us with further exemplification – an objectification of objectified account of empirical events – to explore such relations in a variety of terms: phenomenological, socio-cultural, pedagogic, scientific. Chapter 9 concluded this discussion by referring to the ‘practice of theory’ since it has become apparent in the course of the book that any practical activity does imply an underlying theoretical stance – whether explicit or implicit. Ipso facto, ethnography can never be carried out in a realm of theoretical neutrality, or whilst maintaining a position of epistemological abstention. Indeed, the whole argument of Chapter 9 was that classroom language ethnography needs to be guided not only by principles of theory and of practice but by a theory of practice. Of course, such a statement returns us to the sociology of Bourdieu and, exactly, the theory of practice that articulates his own methodological approach to the study of social contexts. For Bourdieu, ethnography must be shaped by a series of epistemological issues and questions which pertain to the nature of the scientific endeavour itself and the character of the resultant knowledge. We saw in Chapter 10 some of the key elements to such an approach and in the ‘stages’ which must be considered when undertaking ethnography from this perspective: the construction of the research object, the three-level method for field-analysis, and the reflexivity that such an approach necessitates.
We have described the book as a meeting point – of ethnography, NLS and Bourdieu – and also as a journey – from theory to practice to theory again. In conclusion, our main message must be that literacy and language in education do indeed need to be approached from the direction of ethnography. NLS has provided a good foundation for such an ethnography but Bourdieu provides a further extension to this field of study by offering a more philosophically informed theory of practice for classroom language ethnography. As stated at the outset, such a synthesis must surely offer a fresh perspective on language in classrooms, literacy events and the significance they have in the processes of pedagogic discourse.