As I delved into the readings assigned this week, I couldn't help but notice the publication dates—2005. In a rapidly evolving world, one might question the relevance of material written nearly two decades ago. However, as I immersed myself in the content, I found that the issues and discussions presented remain remarkably pertinent in 2024.
But do you agree? Disagree? Perhaps both sentiments are warranted depending on the context.
Consider the socio-political landscape in 2005—globalization was accelerating, technology was rapidly advancing, and environmental concerns were gaining traction. Fast forward to 2024, and these themes have only intensified. The challenges and opportunities presented by globalization, the impact of technology on society, and the urgency of environmental sustainability are as pressing today as they were back then.
Yet, despite the continuity of these overarching themes, nuances emerge when we scrutinize the specifics. One reading may strike a chord more deeply than another, sparking new insights or raising perplexing questions.
For instance, Glazier's article stood out to me for its analysis and details on multicultural literature in the classroom. Despite its age, the insights offered shed light on contemporary issues such as teacher's countering problems that students aren't able to read, write, or talk about themselves (Glazier, 2005, p.698.)
However, in contrast, [insert another reading title] left me grappling with its implications in today's context. While certain aspects remain relevant, others seem outdated or fail to capture the complexity of our current reality.
How do we reconcile the enduring relevance of these readings with the evolving dynamics of our world? What insights can we glean from material crafted in a different era, and how might we apply them meaningfully in our present circumstances?
Glazier, J., & Seo, J.-A. (2005). Multicultural literature discussion as mirror and window? Journal of adolescent & adult literacy, 48(8), 686-700
You pointed out the very thing that is constant and will never change - that our world is ever-evolving and changing rapidly. It's never a bad thing to look at and learn from our past because it tells us what has worked, what hasn't worked, what needs to change, and how life could be made better. In reading Torres-Padilla (2005) the Whigs were presented as wanting to keep things orderly and a certain way erring on the side of legalism because they thought it was the best way to deal with society. Today we can keep things orderly and have laws but to be rigid is not helpful because our cultures are different. We have to recognize that we're not all going to think the same way but we can listen and understand another's point of view.
ReplyDeleteReference:
Torres-Padilla, J. L. (2005). Death to the originary narrative! or, insurgent multiculturalism and teaching multiethnic literature. MELUS: Multi-Ethnic Literature of the United States, 30(2), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/melus/30.2.13
Well said, Emily.
DeleteIt is interesting that you strip down these passages into the simple commentary that "students do to know how to talk about themselves." This is a true statement, and it filters out the problems with ethnocentric ideology. These students do not have a way to communicate about themselves or how to convey their identity without guarding their words to prevent offense to someone else on one hand but turn around later and call them names they heard on Tik Tok.
ReplyDeleteVery true. There is a loss of identity almost and students just be who they see everyone else being. Hence the names from TikTok that they don't even know what they really mean.
Delete