Critical Literacy: Foundational Notes

Author(s): Allan Luke

Source: Theory Into Practice , Winter 2012, Vol. 51, No. 1, The Future of Critical
Literacies in U.S. Schools (Winter 2012), pp. 4-11
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41331066

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41331066?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Theory Into Practice

This content downloaded from

193.136.111.125 on Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:19:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Theory Into Practice, 51 :4-l 1, 2012 RoUtl6Clû6
Copyright © The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio Stat
ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online
DOI: 1 0. 1 080/0040584 1 .201 2.636324

Allan Luke

Critical Literacy:
Foundational Notes

This article traces the lineage of critical More

liter-
recently, the new media have been used as
acy from Freire through critical pedagogiesa means
and for the dissent and revolution in the Mid-
discourse analysis. It discusses the need for a
dle East, with several governments attempting
contingent definition of critical literacy ; given
to shut down instant messaging and social net-
the increasingly sophisticated nature of texts and
working, while maintaining longstanding control
discourses. over traditional print and video reporting. The
"global village" imagined by Marshall McLuhan
(1968) is fact: a virtual and material world where
traditional print and image, canonical genres,
and new modalities of information sit side by
side - where new and old media build discourse
THE withwith
NEWgovernments'
governments'andINFORMATION and corporations' ORDER is messing long-
corporations' long-
standing relations of control and domination. In communities and enable political and cultural
action.
the past year, the U.S. State Department critiqued
the Chinese government for their censorship of The current uprisings across this village return
Web engines, arguing that freedom of (Google) one to the classical questions of critical literacy.
access to information was a democratic right. What is "truth"? How is it presented and repre-
Yet several months later, the State Department sented, by whom, and in whose interests? Who
declared the Wikileaks release of diplomatic ca- should have access to which images and words,
bles a threat to national and geopolitical security. texts, and discourses? For what purposes?
This isn't simply about reading or functional
literacy. It never has been. Brave New World
Allan Luke is a professor in Education at Queensland
(Huxley, 1932), 1984 (Orwell, 1949), Fahren-
University of Technology.
heit 451 (Bradbury, 1962), and Oryx and Crake
Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Al 1 an
Luke, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria (Atwood, 2003) should be required reading for
Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4059, Australia. secondary English. They remind us that civil
E-mail: a2.luke@qut.edu.au society, human relationships, and freedom are

This content downloaded from

193.136.111.125 on Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:19:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Luke Foundational Notes

dependent political systems. Asfree

upon a practical approach to
flow
works teach curriculum,
the it melds social, political, and cultural
centrality
the danger of
debate autocratic
and discussion with the analysis of how c
and the texts and discourses
moral work, where, with what
imperative
over power consequences,
are, and inindeed,
whose interests. str
of information and
Different approaches interp
reflect regional and local
tual access, cultural
critique,and policy contexts. Over 5and decades, in
down, models have beenvia
whether developed incorpora
large-scale
control of the
national literacypress,
campaigns, informal and com- of t
access, of the archive
munity education programs for women and mi- of k
first grants, adult of
libraries and technical education, univer-
Alexandr
agency, sity literature and cultural studies, and teacher
self-determination
at risk. education. In schools, models of critical liter-
These ultimately are
acy have been applied in the fields of English, cu
about whose version
language arts, writing, TESOL, social studiesof
everyday life will
education, media, count
and information technologies a
They are (e.g., Comber & Simpson, 2001; B.
questions Morgan &
about p
about Ramanathan,
which 2005). The articles in this of
modes issue in
tive scripts,review which
many of these approaches. design
deemed worth learning; w
with reading and writing w
social and cultural Historical Foundations
purpose
The term literacy refers
writing of text.
The term critical The
has a distinctiveterm
etymology.
to use of the technologi
It is derived from the Greek adjective kriticos , the
media of communication
ability to argue and judge. Working in marginal-
and ized indigenous
transform the and peasant communities in
norms,
tices Brazil, Freire's (1970)
governing the approach was grounded
social
(A. Luke, 2004). Since Freire's (1970) educa- in Marxist and phenomenological philosophies.
tional projects in Brazil, approaches to critical He argued that schooling was based on a "bank-
literacy have been developed through feminist, ing model" of education, where learners' lives
postcolonial, poststructuralist, and critical race and cultures were taken as irrelevant. He advo-
theory; critical linguistics and cultural studies; cated a dialogical approach to literacy based on
and, indeed, rhetorical and cognitive models. principles of reciprocal exchange. These would
This is an introduction to models developed critique and transform binary relationships of
for schools. Critical literacy is an overtly po- oppressed and oppressor, teacher and learner.
litical orientation to teaching and learning and Cultural circles would begin with dialogue on
to the cultural, ideological, and sociolinguistic learners' problems, struggles, and aspirations.
content of the curriculum. It is focused on the The focus would be on naming and renaming,
uses of literacy for social justice in marginalized
narrating and understanding learners' life worlds,
and disenfranchised communities. This involves with the aim of framing and solving real prob-
both redistributive and recognitive social justice
lems. Reading and writing are about substantive
(Fraser, 1997): the more equitable distribution
lives and material realities, and they are goal
and achievement of literate practices, and shifts
and problem-directed. "Reading the word," then,
in the ideological content and uses of literacy.
entails "reading the world" (Freire & Macedo,
Critical literacy has an explicit aim of the cri-1987), unpacking myths and distortions, and
tique and transformation of dominant ideologies,building new ways of knowing and acting upon
cultures and economies, and institutions and the world. Technical mastery of written language,

This content downloaded from

193.136.111.125 on Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:19:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Future of Critical Literacies in U.S. Schools

then, is a means to broader human agency and
individual and collective action - not an end in
itself.
There are many antecedents to Freire' s ap-
proach. Early 20th century exemplars of working
the construction of social and material relations,
everyday cultural and political life.
Educational Antecedents

class and African American community edu-

cation were established in many cities (Shan- In the late 20th century, reading psycholo-
non, 1989; Willis, 2008). There are significant gists began to expand models of reading beyond
European treatises on language and literature behaviorism to emphasize meaning-construction
as potential modes of political and social ac- (e.g., vanDijk & Kintsch, 1983). Hence, Ameri-
tion. These range from Voloshinov's (1929/1986) can reading research focused on comprehension
analysis of speech genres as political acts, to and higher-order skills, including prediction and
Brechťs experiments with political drama (Weber inference. These versions of critical reading
& Heinen, 2010). Work in postwar British cul- define literacy as an internal cognitive process
tural studies by Richard Hoggart (1957) and reliant upon readers' background knowledge or
Raymond Williams (1977) set the directions for schemata (Anderson & Pearson, 1984). There
approaches to critical literacy: (a) the expansion is a rationalist assumption at work here: that
of education beyond canonical and literary texts critique enables the identification of logical or
to include works of popular culture; (b) a focus factual error. The Enlightenment belief in the sci-
on critical analysis as counter-hegemonic critique entific falsification and verification of knowledge
that might, in turn, (c) encourage recognition ofis central to definition of higher-order thinking
marginalized communities' histories and experi- and, indeed, linguistic complexity and function
ences. (Halliday & Martin, 1995). Literacy is affiliated
Poststructuralist models of discourse are an- with the developmental acquisition of complex
other philosophical influence. Versions of socialforms of reasoning and cognitive processes (e.g.,
and material reality are built and shaped throughtaxonomy, categorization) and growth from nar-
rative to expository genres (Olson, 1996).
linguistic categorization. Yet one of the principal
unresolved issues in Freire's work was its di- In schools, critical reading is taught as a
alectical technique of binary opposition (e.g.,reasoned
op- approach to identifying author bias; ap-
pressor/oppressed, monologue and dialogue), and
proaches to comprehension focus on the multiple
the absence of an elaborated model of text and possible meanings derived from the interaction
language. A central tenet of Foucaulťs (1972) of background knowledge and textual message.
Yet there is little recognition that xX and
analysis of discourse was that binary opposition
had the potential to obscure the complexity of curriculum necessarily engage particulču c^aural
and political standpoints. Nor is there emphasis
discourse. Poststructuralist theory both critiqued
on the ways that text selection and the shaping
the literary canon and argued against the validity
of any definitive interpretation or truth from of awhat counts as reading can serve cultural and
given text (Derrida, 1978). social class-based interests (A. Luke, 1988).
Taken together, these diverse foundations haveCurrent models of critical reading also draw
led to: (a) a focus on ideology critique andfrom postwar literary theory. Many 1960s uni-
versity and secondary school English classrooms
cultural analysis as a key element of education
against cultural exclusion and marginalization;
focused readers on the close reading of textual
(b) a commitment to the inclusion of work- features and literary devices (e.g., Wellek &
ing class, cultural and linguistic minorities, in- Warren, 1949). In US English education, the
digenous learners, and others marginalized on shift from New Criticism to reader response
the basis of gender, sexuality, or other forms theory (Rosenblatt, 1978) set the grounds for
of difference; and (c) an engagement with the an increased emphasis on personal response to
significance of text, ideology, and discourse in literature. The assumption was that literary texts

This content downloaded from

193.136.111.125 on Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:19:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Luke Foundational Notes

produce education in the Americas (e.g., Darder,

diverse meanin Balto-
ers' affective dano, & Torres, 2003).responses
Students are involved in
literature becomes a means for the moral and analysis of the effects of capitalism, colonialism,
intellectual construction of the self (Willinsky, and inequitable economic relations. This entails
1990). working with learners to question class, race, and
These models of literacy as cognitive process, gender relations through dialogic exchange. In
as textual analysis, and as personal response such a setting, traditional authority and epistemic
feature in school curricula. They move beyond knowledge relations of teachers and student shift:
Freire's (1970) typification of schooling as a Learners become teachers of their understandings
banking model. Cognitive models invoke read- and experiences, and teachers become learners
ers' background knowledge, acknowledging the of these same contexts. This might entail setting
cultural basis of the resources children bring to open, dialogic conditions of exchange by estab-
school. Further, reader response models share lishing a cultural circle among adult learners.
In school classrooms, it might entail establish-
with Freire a focus on the possibilities of literacy
for the critical analysis of self/other relations ing democratic conditions in classrooms where
and the restoration of power to readers. These authentic exchange can occur around social and
remain focal points in the development of cultural cultural issues (Lewison, Leland, & Harste, 2008;
approaches to literacy (e.g., McNaughton, 2002) Vasquez, 2004). In schools and universities, these
and in efforts to meld learner-centered models approaches also focus literacy on community
with social and political analysis (e.g., Edelsky, study, and the analysis of social movements,
1991). service learning, and political activism. They also
Yet critical literacy approaches set the reshap- involve the development of a critical media liter-
ing of political consciousness, material condi- acy , focusing on the analysis of popular cultural
tions, and social relations as first principles. They texts including advertising, news, broadcast me-
also differ in their understandings of the relative dia, and the Internet (e.g., Alvermann & Hagood,
agency and power of readers and writers, texts 2000; Kellner & Share, 2005). Finally, there is
and language. a broad focus in these models on alternative

versions of history and science.

Critical Pedagogies
Freire's principles have been formed into a
broad project of critical pedagogy (Lankshear &
McLaren, 1993). Freire drew from Marx the key
concept that ruling class ideology defines school
knowledge and ideology. By this view, school
literacy creates a receptive literacy, involving a
passive reproduction of knowledge. The focus
of critical literacy is on ideology critique of the
world portrayed in media, literature, textbooks,
and functional texts (Shor & Freire, 1987). The
alternative is to begin from learners' worldviews,
in effect turning them into inventors of the cur-
riculum, critics and creators of knowledge.
Critical analyses of economic conditions were
central to literacy campaigns led by Freire in
Africa and the Americas (Kukendall, 2010), and
they are the focus of current efforts at political
In the early 1990s, feminist scholars argued
that the model risked ideological imposition that
was contrary to its ethos. In everyday practice,
there was, and is, a parallel risk of pedagogic
imposition, given the complex forms of gen-
dered and raced voice and power, identity, and
subjectivity at work in classroom interaction (C.
Luke & Gore, 1991). The critiques have had a
continuing impact. Especially in Australia and
Canada, approaches to school reading focus on
textual and media representations of women and
girls (W. Morgan, 1997; Mellor, O'Neill, & Pat-
terson, 2000), and on gendered patterns of class-
room interaction (Lee, 1996). Relatedly, there
is a stronger focus on standpoint and agency,
including a critique of patriarchy within critical
pedagogy.
American approaches to critical literacy have
developed a strong focus on the politics of voice,
on engaging with the histories, identities, and

This content downloaded from

193.136.111.125 on Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:19:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Future of Critical Literacies in U.S. Schools

struggles faced by groups marginalized on the canonical texts and registers, on the one hand,
basis of difference of gender, language, culture and ideology critique, on the other.
and race, and sexual orientation (e.g., Kumishiro A practical approach is based upon criti-
& Ngo, 2007). A critical approach to language cal discourse analysis, an explicitly political
and literacy education requires an explicit en- derivative of systemic functional linguistics (Fair-
gagement with cultural and linguistic diversity clough, 1990; Janks, 2010). Bringing together
(Norton & Toohey, 2004; Kubota & Lin, 2009). ideology critique with an explicit instructional
focus on teaching how texts work, Fairclough
(1990) argued for the teaching of ''critical lan-
Discourse Analytic Approaches guage awareness." This entails teaching students
the analysis of a range of texts - functional, aca-
Three decades of ethnographic research have demic, literary - attending to lexico-grammatical
documented the cultural, social, cognitive, and structure, ideological contents, and the identifi-
linguistic complexity of literacy acquisition and able conditions of production and use (A. Luke,
use. This raises two substantive educational chal- 2000). Critical linguistics makes broad distinc-
lenges for critical pedagogy approaches. First, it tions between ideological formations in texts,
is largely synchronic, advocating particular ap- their social functions and their distinctive fea-
proaches to literacy pedagogy without a broader tures, and the social fields where they have ex-
developmental template. Although Freirian mod- change value. This enables teachers and students
els provide a pedagogical approach and a polit- to focus on how words, grammar, and discourse
ical stance, they lack specificity on how teach- choices shape a version of material, natural, and
ers and students can engage with the complex sociopolitical worlds. It also enables a focus on
structures of texts, both traditional and multi- how words and grammar attempt to establish
modal. The acquisition of language, text, and relations of power between authors and readers,
discourse requires the developmental engagement speakers and addressees. Furthermore, it enables
with levels of linguistic and discourse complexity a critical engagement with the question of where
and access to multiple discourses and affiliated texts are used, by whom, and in whose interests.
linguistic registers (Gee, 1991; Lemke, 1996). Critical literacy - by this account - entails the
Later models of critical literacy, particularly developmental engagement by learners with the
those developed in Australia and the UK, attempt major texts, discourses, and modes of informa-
to come to grips with these practical issues. tion. It attempts to attend to the ideological and
A major critique of critical pedagogy was that hegemonic functions of texts, as in critical peda-
it overlooked the need for students to master a gogy models. But it augments this by providing
range of textual genres and registers, special- students with technical resources for analyzing
ized ways with words used in science, social how texts work (Wallace, 2003). For example,
institutions, and further education (Halliday & this might entail the analysis of a textbook or
Martin, 1995). Systemic functional linguists have media representation of political or economic
argued that the mastery of genre entails sophis- life. But in addition to questions of how a text
ticated lexical and grammatical choice (Hasan & might reflect learners' life worlds and experi-
Williams, 1996). Equitable access to how texts ences, it also teaches them how the selection of
work, they argued, is an essential step in redis- specific grammatical structures and word choices
tributive social justice, and cannot be achieved attempts to manipulate the reader.
through a principal focus on student voice or
ideology critique. The affiliated approach to crit-
ical literacy, then, argues for explicit instruction What Is to Be Done?
and direct access to "genres of power" (Kalantzis
& Cope, 1996). Yet there are unresolved issues Critical literacy approaches view language,
about the requisite balance of direct access to texts, and their discourse structures as principal

This content downloaded from

193.136.111.125 on Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:19:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Luke Foundational Notes

means for comprehension

representing and critique. Who understand
worlds. structures aim
The of debt? The transnational
isdivision
the
capacity toof labor
use and wealth? Derivatives
texts and futures to a
their systems
markets? This of exchang
will require a new vocabulary to
forming social
describe, analyze relations
and, indeed, critique current
As a economicand
cultural structures and linguist
forces (A. Luke, Luke,
literacy & Graham, 2007). an
entails under
and discourses can
Critical literacies be
are, by definition, ma
historical
and, indeed, alter the world. But this focus on works in progress. There is no correct or uni-
power, on transformation and change, does not versal model. Critical literacy entails a process
and cannot, in itself, resolve central issues around of naming and renaming the world, seeing its
moral and political normativity (Muspratt, Luke, patterns, designs, and complexities, and develop-
& Freebody, 1998; Pennycook, 2001); around ing the capacity to redesign and reshape it (New
the question of whose values, texts, ideologies, London Group, 1996). How educators shape and
and discourses should take center stage; and deploy the tools, attitudes, and philosophies of
about the desired shapes and directions of social critical literacy is utterly contingent: It depends
transformation. upon students' and teachers' everyday relations
Freire's (1970) initial model was a significant of power, their lived problems and struggles, and,
statement in point-of-decolonization educational as the articles here demonstrate, on educators'
theory. That is, the silencing of urban and rural professional ingenuity in navigating the enabling
classes set the grounds for an explicitly political and disenabling local contexts of policy.
educational agenda. Yet, although the Freirían
model was based on binary analyses of "op-
pressed" and "oppressors," globalized "hypercap-
italist" systems (Graham, 2006) have led to more References

complex economic and political forces, with

the emergence of multiple forms of solidarity Alvermann, D., & Hagood, M. (2000). Critical media
and identity, new political coalitions and social literacy: Research, theory, and practice in "new
movements. times." Journal of Educational Research, 93 , 1 93-
205.
New media have created dynamic and en-
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P D. (1984). A schema-
abling conditions for new cultures, social move-
theoretic view of basic processes in reading com-
ments, and politics (Hammer & Kellner,prehension.
2009). In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil,
Definitions of literacy have expanded to include
& P Mosenthal (Eds.), The handbook of reading
engagement with texts in a range of semiotic
research: Vol. 1 (pp. 25-291). New York: Longman.
forms: visual, aural, and digital multimodal texts
Attwood, M. (2003). Oryx and Crake. Toronto: Mc-
(e.g., Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, Clelland
2008). & Stewart.

As my initial comments on the currentBradbury,

politicalR. (1962). Fahrenheit 451 . New York: Bal-
lantine.
contexts in the Middle East suggest, this is
not just a matter of designer careers Coiro,
and newJ., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. (Eds.).
(2008).
technologies, as stated in curriculum policy. It isThe handbook of research on new literacies.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
about the possibility of using new literacies to
Comber, В., & Simpson, A. (Eds.). (2001). Negotiat-
change relations of power, both peoples' every-
ing critical literacies in classrooms. Mahwah, NJ:
day social relations and larger geopolitical andErlbaum
Lawrence Associates.
economic relations. At the same time, digital
Darder, en-
A., Baltodano, M., & Torres, R. (Eds.). (2003).
gagement, in itself, does not constitute a critical
The critical pedagogy reader. New York: Rout-
literacy approach, for digital culture sits ledge.
within
a complex, emergent political economic order
Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference (A. Bass,
that, for many learners and adults, is well trans.).
beyond Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

This content downloaded from

193.136.111.125 on Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:19:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Future of Critical Literacies in U.S. Schools

Edelsky, C. (1991). With literacy and justice for all.
London: Taylor & Francis.
Fairclough, N. (Ed.). (1990). Critical language aware-
ness. London: Longman.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge
Lewison, M., Leland, С., & Harste, J. (2008). Cre-
ating critical classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Luke, A. (1988). Literacy, textbooks, and ideology.
London: Falmer Press.

and the discourse on language (A. Sheridan-Smith,
trans). London: Tavistock.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B.
Ramos, trans.). New York: Continuum.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the
word and the world. South Hadley, MA: Bergin &
Garvey.
Fraser, N. (1997). Justus interruptus. London: Rout-
ledge.
Gee, J. P. (1991). Social linguistics and literacies.
Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia. Journal
of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 448-461 .
Luke, A. (2004). Two takes on the critical. In B.
Norton & K. Toohey (eds.), Critical pedagogies
and language learning (pp. 21-31). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Luke, A., Luke, C., & Graham, P. (2007). Globalisa-
tion, corporatism and critical language education.
International Multilingual Research Journal, /, 1-
13.

London: Taylor & Francis.
Graham, P. (2006). Hypercapitalism. New York: Peter
Lang.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1995). Writing
science. London: Taylor & Francis.
Hammer, R., & Kellner, D. (Eds.). (2009). Media/
cultural studies: A critical approach. New York: Mellor, В., O'Neill, M., & Patterson, A. (2000). Read-
Peter Lang.
Hasan, R., & Williams G. (Eds.). (1996). Literacy in
society. London: Longman.
Hoggart, R. (1957). The uses of literacy. Har-
mondsworth: Penguin.
Huxley, A. (1932). Brave new world. London: Chatto
& Windus.
Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and power. London: Rout-
ledge.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (Eds.). (1996). The powers
of literacy. London: Taylor & Francis.
Luke, C, & Gore, J. (Eds.). (1991). Feminisms and
critical pedagogy. London: Routledge.
McLuhan, M. (1968). War and peace in the global
village. New York: Bantam.
McNaughton, S. (2002). Meeting of minds. Auckland,
New Zealand: Learning Media.
ing stories. Perth, WA: Chalkface Press/National
Council of Teachers of English.
Morgan, В., & Ramanathan, V. (2005). Critical lit-
eracies and language eduation: Global and local
perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
25, 151-169.
Morgan, W. (1997). Critical literacy in the classroom.
London: Routledge.
Muspratt, S., Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (Eds.). (1998).
Constructing critical literacies. New York: Hamp-
ton Press.

Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2005). Toward critical media New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multilit-
literacy: Core concepts, debates, organisation and eracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educa-
policy. Discourse, J, 369-386. tional Review, 66 , 60-92.
Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (Eds.). (2009). Race, culture and Norton, В., & Toohey, K. (Eds.). (2004). Critical ped-
identities in second language learning. New York: agogies and language learning. Cambridge, UK:
Routledge. Cambridge University Press.
Kukendall, A. J. (2010). Paulo Freire and the cold war Olson, D. R. (1996). The world on paper. Cambridge:
politics of literacy. Chapel Hill, NC: University of Cambridge University Press.
North Carolina Press. Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. London: Sekur & Warburg.
Kumishiro, K., & Ngo, B. (Eds.). (2007). Six lenses Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics.
for anti-oppressive education. New York: PeterMahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lang. Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem:
Lankshear, C., & McLaren, P. (Eds.). (1993). Critical The transactional theory of the literary work . Car-
literacy. Albany, NY: State University of New York bondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Press. Shannon, P. (1989). Broken promises: Reading instruc-
Lee, A. (1996). Gender, literacy, curriculum. London: tion in 20th century America. South Hadley, MA:
Taylor & Francis. Bergin & Garvey.
Lemke, J. (1996). Textual politics. London: Taylor & Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation.
Francis. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

10

This content downloaded from

193.136.111.125 on Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:19:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Luke Foundational Notes

vanDijk, T. A.,
Political &
theory and literary Kints
practice. Athens, G A:
discourse comprehensio
University of Georgia Press.
Vasquez, V. (2004).
Wellek, Negot
R., & Warren, A. (1949). Theory of literature.
young New York: Harcourt, Brace. Mahwa
children.
Associates. Willis, A. I. (2008). Reading comprehension research
Voloshinov, V. N. (1986). Marxism and the philosophy and testing in the U.S.: Undercurrents of race , class
of language (L. Matějka & I. R. Titunik, trans.). and power in the struggle for meaning. Mahwah,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Orig- NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
inal work published 1929) Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford,
Wallace, C. (2003). Critical reading in language edu- UK: Oxford University Press.
cation. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Willinsky, J. (1990). The new literacy. London: Rout-
Weber, В., & Heinen, H. (Eds.). (2010). Bertolt Brecht : ledge.

T№

This content downloaded from

193.136.111.125 on Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:19:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms