“Critical perspectives still very much guide the guide the pedagogy of rhetorical dexterity in its commitment to social justice, but I am also leery of any project that imposes my personal, liberal political agenda onto my students” (59), do you think Carter manages that?

She says that she proposes a program based on a “much more situated perspective of literacy as it functions in the real lives of our students” (59). This program seems idealistic but she does manage it to a certain extent. But to leave personality or your own agenda out of the teaching process is nearly impossible. Following social constructivist theory, she did not exist in a vacuum so her own personal beliefs will affect the pedagogy. I think in the current political climate anything that is geared away from standardized tests is idealistic and would be considered liberal.

Carter’s definition for critical consciousness is “the ability to perceive social, political, and economic oppression and take action against the oppressive elements of society” (40). Paulo Freire and Jacqueline Jones Royster, David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky have all discussed critical consciousness

Carter’s definition for “power” is “a unitary force within uniform effects” and there are three types of this power, “coercion as a form of authority is “the sort of obvious control when A tells B exactly what to do and B does it”; persuasion is the second type of force and involves “when A convinces B that her position is “right” and “true” and thus persuades B to change his/her mind”; and the third form of power Carter discusses is authority, “the concept of power she contends that can reconcile the impasse so many critical educators have felt” (57). Patricia Bizzell is a scholar that discusses these forms of power and Tom Fox also has some interesting points about power.

Carter discusses Street’s autonomous model of literacy which implies that literacy practices exist in a vacuum. When you are becoming literate there are many different factors that contribute to literacy. Brian Street discusses a change in this conception through replacing “the theory of the “Great Divide” between ‘primitive’ and ‘modern’ culture…with the distinction between ‘literate’ and ‘non-literate’” (24)

Carter defines “false consciousness” as “versions of the more “people-centered” perspectives discussed in this chapter, especially critical literacies, assume that the symbols themselves not only represent the world but actually help generate it and the way we experience it; thus, reading becomes a matter of reading the world itself as the individual experiences it” (39-40). Patricia Bizzell and Cope & Kalantzis discuss this in more detail.

“A conflict that ultimately led me to rethink this approach and the practical consequences of a critical pedagogy” (43) is the conflict between her liberal leftist politics and how she runs her Basic writing program at A&M Commerce I think. She wants to leave the power in the hands of her students. She cites Lee Odells circular writing assignment to “Write an essay about the ways in which your education has arbitrarily restricted the choices you make as a student” then the statement gets broken down into harsh reality, “talk about how fundamentally naïve you are, how intellectually inferior you are to your instructors, and how the institutionalized oppression inherent in the American educational system made you that way” (41). Ana is the main instigator for this conflict between her pedagogical approach and reality.