Materials Assessment of a Philippine Literature Textbook for High School: A Case for Critical Literacy Paradigm (Paper delivered during the Ist National Congress on Action Research in Education Febmary 27-28, 2015 at De La Salle University, Manila) Assistant Professor of Literature De La Salle Araneta University ‘Malabon City Abstract: ‘Twenty years ago, the state of literature teaching in the Philippines was characterized as rudimentary. “Teachers taught literary texts with language proficiency as target outcome in mind (de Castro, 1995). Arguably, the scene has not changed. The predominant methods of teaching literature in elementary, sscondary—and even college—levels continue to be formalist and Amnoldian in assumption. Pushed by globalized market, the emphasis on pragmatic language competencies relegates literature to ancillary function, Hence, the rise of theory in literature studies is yet to be felt in Philippine classrooms. This [Paper examines Ribo, de Peralta, and Nery’s Language in Literature 1 (2010), a textbook studied at the high school department of De La Salle Araneta University, by employing the concept of critical literacy (Brookfield, 2005; Chege, 2009; Tyson, 2001; Morgan, 997). I shaill uncover the textbook’ theoretical assumptions on the relationship between literature and language learning by scrutinizing its paratexts (Cover, preface, organization), topic selections, lesson introductions, and comprehension questions. [ shall ‘pick a poem from the textbook and perform hermeneutic intervention to demonstrate how critical literacy could serve as coneotive to a formalist-driven pedagogy for literature. The recémmeddations gathered from the assessment of a sample textbook could help educators develop materials responsive to K-12 readiness.Materials Assessment of a Philippine Literature Textbook for High School: A Case for Critical Literacy Paradigm Twenty years ago, Lourdes de Castro surveyed the state of literature teaching in the Philippines as characterized by its close link with the teachers’ attempt to develop language skills among their students. Literary interpretation was synonymous with a formalist approach and practical criticism which limited literary skills to students’ ability to identify modes of characterization, setting, universal themes, and plot sequence. She recognizes that teachers face non-avid readers who must be coaxed to read selections through motivational “advertising” of the texts in the form of cliff hangers and avowed connection of the story to students’ “real” life (De Castro, 51-56). Arguably the scene has not changed. The assimilation of literature to Janguage study was also evident in other EFL situations. Literary texts are taught for its assumed authenticity of language use among Spanish adult learners enrolled in English classes: “In the classroom itself authentic material will already be in use by way of notices, maps, cartoons, tickets, advertisements and so on. Literature provides another source of authenticity” (De Riverol, 83). Related to the dual goal of providing linguistic and literary skills to EFL students is the study of literature from a stylistic approach. An attempt to introduce this approach in China failed despite the eagerness of English teachers. Traditional stylistics in language teaching through literature fails to take into account the cultural dimension of texts in every reading event: ‘The kind of epiphany, as experienced by a specialist like Leo Spitzer when after repeated readings of a text a ‘click’ occurs in his mind to have form and meaning buckled up, as it Were, with a snap, rarely, if ever, happens to an EFL learner. This is not to say that the EFL student can never hope to produce a valid interpretation based on his [sic] ‘more Correct’ intuitions; it is only more difficult for him to do so. This is not surprising because again, as Carter says, stylistics [sic] analysis, being basically a linguistic procedure, is best performed ‘by reference to what we already know of the language as native users of that language’ (Qian, 148). This runs counter to the optimistic universalism that “Certainly for the advanced student literature provides a genuine context for communication and also engages the emotions. Inevitably... studying literature can also cut across cultural barrier” (De Riverol, 82). This assumption feeds upon the author-centered intentionalism which could be captured through lexico-grammar evidence. Yet conventional stylistics, proposed as the bridge between literature and language, is beset by three problems. First, the writer may not really be in control of theproduction and consumption of the text. Furthermore, stylistics works through hindsight evidence because we cannot really probe the intention of the author at the very moment of writing, The phonaesthetic fallacy is an offshoot of this attempt to prove the literariness of a text and the volitional ingenuity of the author. Lastly, the reader's role is downplayed in the intentionalist account of reading (Mills, 1993, 183). Calling instead for a radical stylistics which situates the text within the discursive practices of its readers and writers, Mills couples feminist advocacy with stylisties to avoid accusation against carlier feminist theorists who narrowly interrogate texts solely for content and neglect the formal features dear to conventional stylisticians (Mills, 1992, 185). She clears the ground by questioning the French feminist notion of an essentialist ecriture feminine. Instead, the “feminine” in a feminine sentence cannot but be the projection of the reader as a member of an interpretive community. Hence, stylistics should also investigate the role of the reader in textual analysis since an apolitical reading perpetuates the blind spot in the process of meaning-making (Mills, 1995, 65). She also points out that texts are not gender-free: deixis interpellates the reader to take on a dominant reading position (Mills, 1992, 187-188). Mills bridges the gap between the strictures of stylistics (that we cannot interpret texts anyway we like) and the feminist ideology critique (that texts are discursively mediated). The effect of critical theory to literary studies has inevitably changed the way we read. ‘There is no going back to the innocent readings of Leavisite criticism or the disinterested text of the New Critics. The politicization of literary interpretation which is a progress in literary studies caused the dissolution of the clitist difference between the “literary” and the “non-literary.” The application of analytical rigor for both canon and popular texts is described as “so osmotic that it now seems fully permeable membrane allowing back and forth pussage as casily as a capillary” (Cioffi, 84). Although theory has already permeated our reading practices in graduate courses, much is yet to be desired in its effect to our classroom practices and materials development. Despite their seeming disconneet, teaching and theory are inseparable. If our reading is a political intervention, then “teaching critically is not just a question of how we teach, It is also about what we teach” (Brookfield, 349). In this paper, I will examine the high school textbook Language in Literature | used at the Basic Education of De La Salle Araneta University. I will uncover the theoretical assumption Of the textbook on the relationship of literature to language study by examining its paratext (cover, preface, organization), the topies and selections, the lesson introductions, and comprehension questions. My assessment is informed by the problematics encountered by stylistics and the consequences of theory in literary studies. Demonstrating the relationship between theory and pedagogy, the paper performs an intervention of critical theory to literary pedagogy so that the textual gaps left unexamined could be brought to the open. Critical Literacy Chege (2009) outlines five available paradigms on literacy. The “great divide” approach views reading and writing skills as distinctive characteristic that separates civilized people fromthe savages. The second approach regards the functional benefits of literacy in order to find one’s way in a textual society. Functional literacy trains individuals to become encoders and recipients of messages. Both approaches do not problematize the discourses of literacy (whose literacy? why their literacy?). Instead, they take for granted the archaeology of knowledge as a given with which individuals ought to align themselves. Primarily referring to the works of Althusser and Bourdieu, Chege appraises post-structural approach’s antifoundationalist explanation of literacy as not quite sufficient because of its pessimism, Literacy as discourse, the fourth paradigm, shares the same assessment. Critical literacy, the fifth paradigm, is the most favourable framework on pedagogy because of its advocacy to empower: ‘The pedagogy offers teachers and students 2 theoretical framework with commensurate praxis designed to confront educational policies and mainstream discourses that consign them to the ‘other’ status. Proponents of this approach are cognizant of the paradox of literacy: that as much as literacy is an apparatus of oppression, it is a tool for liberation; that hegemony requires counter-hegemony (Chege, 232), Critical literacy explains our world, denaturalizes ideology, opens a space for emancipation, and brings radical hope for the abjected (Brookfield, 4-10). Literature has a special place in literacy—whichever paradigm the teacher espouses. Brumfit and Carter identify three broad types of literature syllabus: a type constructed to develop the linguistic competence of students (which is common among EFL courses), a syllabus meant to teach culture through its literary heritage, and a syllabus for studying literature in its own right, The last type is viable only if a certain level of reading and language competence has been reached (Brumfit and Carter, 31). Generally, to achieve language competence students are required to read literature as model of good writing and authentic use of language. But using literature for linguistic/communicative purposes is problematic because “the status of the texts themselves is very difficult to define for most non-native speaking teachers, as well as for learners. Literature retains a self-consciousness about literary tradition which is often inappropriate for writing in other fields” (Brumfit and Carter, 25). In fact, use of literary materials for communicative purposes would definitely limit the literary works to be introduced in class. For example, how do we justify the inclusion of Shakespeare in our reading list? Obviously, his English is different from the one we speak today. Shakespeare will not be a good model for teaching students conversion of declarative sentences to interrogative using “do” and “does.” Elizabethans simply changed the position of the subject and the verb without using an auxiliary verb. Should we keep students away from James Joyce’s Ulysses which flaunts the ungrammaticality we exhort students to avoid? Should we drop Villa’s “1, It, Was, That, Saw” for its unabashed punctuation? Through its foregrounding of sentence structures, literature creates its own space different from the authentic situations (ex: at work, hotel, supermarket) language teachers expect their students to encounter. Given that literature may take on an ancillary function to language teaching, linguistic skills could still be achieved without the use of literary texts (Burke and Brumfit, 172). It is even recommended that literature be taught as aseparate subject because it is “an art which invites impurities” (Richard Hoggart in Burke and Brumfit, 173). In other words, understanding literature goes beyond recognizing separate linguistic units and entails knowledge of cultural and ideological presupposition in the text (“impurities”). Hence, “A true literature syllabus will not be simply the use of literary texts for advanced language purposes, but an attempt to develop or extend literary competence” (Brumtfit, 185), Brumfit draws upon the distinction between linguistic competence and Culler’s literary competence whereby “literary understanding will not correlate with their [students"] linguistic skills” (188), Different from the linguistic justification of literature proposed by McKay (1986), Littlewood (1986) problematizes the use of literature in the language classroom for two reasons: the presumed authenticity of literature and the reductivism of literary interpretation to formalist reading. He establishes his argument on the diverse perspectives on literature vis-a-vis language: “language as a system of structures, language in a specific stylistic variety, language as the expression of superficial subject matter, and language as the symbolization of the author's vision” (Littlewood, 178). Although he argues for intentionalism, his conservative opinion on language leads to a practical advice: As a teacher, examine your aim for teaching literature and match it to your students’ needs. Littlewood implicitly resounds Boyle's (1986) loose analogy of literature to ESP because both are content-based and necessitate a specialized language. If reading literature entails a different pedagogy (Brumfit, 187), how do we justify ourselves as “teachers of literature”? If we have renounced the crude equation of literature with life, where do we seek our relevance to teach? In his examination of the mechanisms of power, Foucault observes the synchronicity of normalization with the architecture of Ecole Militaire. ‘The arrangement of the tables at the dining rooms and the half-door latrines are mechanisms which seem superficial “if one forgets the role of this instrumentation, minor but flawless, in the progressive objectification and the ever more subtle partitioning of individual behaviour” (Foucault, 173). If normalization is the goal of technologies of power, then regimentation is not merely to take vengeance on the criminal; it aims to reduplicate the law in the self through preventive and corrective mechanisms. This is what Foucault means when he asserts that “To punish is to exercise” (180). Turning his attention to the early school practices of Fratres Scholarum Christianarum, a teaching order founded by St. John Baptist de la Salle, Foucault characterizes examination as a documentation which produces knowledge about the examinee and the surveillance through regular academic exercise: “It is the fact of being constantly seen, of being able always to be seen, that maintains the disciplined individual in his subjection, The examination is, as it were, the ceremony of this objectification” (Foucault, 187). The school becomes an ideological state apparatus which (un)consciously petrifies the historicism of its discursive practices and distils hegemony into a doxa, an orthodoxy, or common sense. Literacy, fa dimension of school training, hides its ideologically constructed nature and takes on a universalist mask through numbing regimentation of the self—in Habermas’ term, “the colonization of the lifeworld.” How thea is literature implicated in the pastoral modality of “forming the youth?” We can cite two instances of power production in our classroom. First, as teachers who need to respond to the democratization of education (preparation of the citizens forhe workforce), our classroom reading may brush off the social dimension of language and focus more on its pragmatic/functional benefits. Student-centered (read: activity-based) resource books proliferate the relegation of literature to an ancillary function and privilege the communicative approach predicated on the humanist assumption of individualism, Collie and Slater’s (1987) book comes to mind. If literature takes the role of forming the individual, the recognition of oneself as a subject through literary encounter (or the attainment of self-actualization) cannot but be “misrecognition” (Belsey, 56). In other words, the self | presume to be authentic is a simulacrum of the hegemony I am not aware of. Because of misrecognition’s lure, Gramsci suggests that “organic intellectual” take on the task of self-criticism. Second, our teaching of literature may overlook the specificities of race, class, and gender when we perceive the text as a ‘oncrete universal” (Belsey, 18). As the best expression of life and human nature, the poem supposedly reflects the universality of the perceived “natural” order. Although students may be cued to speak their minds—an evidence of their linguistic performance—their engagement with the text is productive in the disciplinary sense: “The individual is no doubt the fictitious atom of an ‘ideological’ representation of the society; but he is also a reality fabricated by this specific technology of power that I have called ‘discipline’” (Foucault, 194). Higher order thinking skills, equated at times to critical thinking, are watered down to students’ capacity to introject life, the “real,” into the text. Critical thinking fails to optimize as a catalyst for an ideology critique; it atrophies to a production of the dominant ideological construct. Belsey believes that classic realism coincided with the rise of industrial capitalism in Europe because any cultural practice is a political production (62). Once we grasp the normative dimension of literacy, we teachers could refashion our relevance in the educational institution as critical literacy teachers. We are armed with the “valuable lenses” of critical theory to reread the text on hand (Tyson, 1999, 3). Critical theory begins with the dictum that “intellectual dominance is also a struggle for economic, social, and political dominance” (Tyson, 1999, 10). Institutions produce and are produced by discourses that conflict with one another—being politically inclined and constitutive of the speaking and writing self (Morgan, 2-4). Since literature attends to representations, critical theory interrogates hegemonic representations (especially in the canon and its construction) by reading against the grain Theory can help us learn to see ourselves and our world in valuable new ways, ways that can influence how we educate our children, both as parents and teachers; how we view television, from the nightly news to situation comedies; how we behave as voters and consumers; how we react to others with whom we do not agree on social, religious, and political issues; and how we recognize and deal with our own motives, fears, and desires (Tyson, 1999, 2-3). The attitude of “questioning postures” (Alley, 26) among teachers of critical literacy is derived from the four sources of its intellectual tradition: the Frankfurt School; the psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic tradition exemplified by Fromm and Laing; analytic philosophy and logic; andpragmatic constructivism (Brookfield, 12-18). Derived from critical social theory, critical theories of literacy take interest in the mediation of class, gender, and ethnicity in knowledge production and circulation. Both critical literacy and critical social theory view society “in constant state of conflict, for the possession of knowledge (hence power), status and material resources is always open to contest” (Morgan, 1). Critical Interventions in the Classroom This section surveys literature on the application of critical theory and literacy in classroom reading, Some authors concentrate on teaching theory among undergraduates, but I wish to argue that critical theory could also be viably introduced in a high school classroom. I ‘would draw from the work of Lisa Eckert (2008) and Terry Ley (1993) to support the teaching of literature through critical literacy model in secondary schools, Myers identifies two ways of teaching literary theory. The first way involves a “taxonomical” orientation whereby students are introduced to the historical development of theory through the schools of thought tackling issues of canon, interpretation and political involvement, and the nature of text. The second way is the “heuristic” approach which views literary theory as a tool for interpretation. However, Myers cautions against these two approaches because they may instead breed interpretive authoritarianism—an accusation hurled against impressionistic, formalist approach in conventional literature classroom, Theory may obfuscate the questioning attitude it seeks to promote. The fear that theory could petrify into another form of authoritarianism could be connected with the teachers’ inherited duty to be seen as experts in their field—a privilege which runs counter to critical theory’s acceptance of the provisionality of knowledge and its tradition of self-criticism (the educator’s own critique of her classroom practices) (Morgan, 81). Spivak’s article on Indian historians’ attempt to speak for the subaltern illustrates possibility of theory to use critical operational terms to interrogate hegemony and {to critique our own interventions. Myer’s concern touches on our practices of literacy— imparting knowledge and skills—that Paulo Freire has termed as a banking system because of its static tendency. Although we may begin with a radical posture towards literacy, yet once it is defined in “monolithic terms, from the centre, within a linear logic that erases uncertainty, it only recognises the borders of privilege and domination” (Giroux in Morgan, 5). The disjunction between pedagogy and literary theory in undergraduate level is due to fragmentation in the university and neglect by literary and cultural critics of teaching because of its conservative function (conserving knowledge) (Agathocleous and Dean, 2). Intervening on literary pedagogy, we have to come to terms with the functional (practical, “real”) role of literacy and the antifoundationalist pedagogy that espouses the materialism of knowledge, the formation of subjects by ideology (not the autonomous individuals we believe ourselves to be), and the involved understanding of the mechanism of inequities (Morgan, 6-7). Our literary pedagogy and students’ literacy cannot escape postcolonial issues (Brumit, 187). This problematizes the unquestioned fit between the functional approach of literacy—madeore mandatory by the global workplace—and the unconscious of the text which is a “constant source of potential disruption on that obedience” (Belsey, 59). Legasto (2004) collects essays which use postcolonial perspectives in language and Philippine literature as an interrogative position vis-a-vis the text. Belvis (2007) brings critical theory to practice in undergraduate Philippine literature class by preparing fourteen teaching strategy plans based on concepts taken from ten literary theories. Although it is aware of Myer’s critique of the heuristic approach, Belvis argues for the necessity to teach theory explicitly as a pharmakon to denaturalize liberal humanism and to pose a critique on the act of interpretation by offering students different ways of looking at the same text. For example, Marxism is imperative in a Philippine literature class because of transnationalism has transformed the OFWs to the new proletariat. By using Kilgore’s teaching strategy plan (TSP) model, Belvis takes Ciofii’s call to popularize theory because of its dense language. Although critical terms cannot be avoided, the activity-based approach to ‘teaching the concepts using short texts help students understand critical theory in a mode they ‘were used to, Moreover, the TSPs heeded Myer’s reminder to sustain a questioning attitude by using Robert Scholes’s structuralist notion of reading as decoding conflicting codes in a text. This metatheory behind the TSPs constantly reminds the students about the provisionality of textual interpretation and the discursive production of reading Scholes (1985) makes two points: first, the nature of reading; second, the implication of reading to our profession as teachers of literature. Since reading is a cultural epistemic activity, “interpretation is not only dependent upon a prior reading; it is also incomplete without further extension into criticism” (Scholes, 35). He distinguishes “reading,” “interpretation,” and “criticism” from one another. By reading, he comes close to functional literacy: our capacity to understand the lexicon and identify the plot of a story. Interpretation, on the other hand, is the theme of the text which could be retrieved from the author’s intention, Scholes’ intentionalism has similar characteristic with ED Hirsch’s notion of meaning (as distinct from “significance”). Criticism is the rereading of the text, the act of decoding other codes the text could take on. Similar to reading against the grain, Scholes’ idea of criticism historicizes the reading process by taking into account how codes work on the text so that it invites us to read it against the backdrop of critical literacy’s interest on gender, race, and ethnicity. After the structuralist critique of the “literary,” teachers of literature are faced with a basic, yet crucial question: What does a literature teacher teach? Since literary studies is already institutional and “we cannot shut it [literary studies] down because it sustains our professional lives” (Scholes, 11), we have to rebuild English by rereading our pedagogy. Our efforts at rebuilding must begin by “asking what ‘we mean when we proclaim ourselves teachers of literature” (Scholes, 11). With the death of the author, the text has lost its privilege based on authorial intention, elitist literariness, and canonicity. After the onslaught, Scholes offers an alternative: stop “teaching literature” and start “studying texts” (16). In other words, abandon the Arnoldian idea of teaching only the canon and focus on the textual codes which would help students form significations of whatever texts they may encounter in and out of the classroom: “What students need from us... is the kind of knowledge and skill that will enable them to make sense of their worlds ” (Scholes, 15). On thesurface level, the structuralist understanding of the text seems limiting because “we can criticize only as representatives of a group or class” (Scholes, 49). Yet this very limitation of our standpoint opens up to engagement with other forms of interrogation and persistently reminds us to be critical about our positions. Hence, if we enjoin students to reread the text, they retrieve the textual power appropriated by hegemonic reading: “Now we must learn instead to help our students unlock textual power and turn it to their own uses” (Scholes, 20). Griffith (1987) aitempts to orient teachers with theory and gives a list of reading materials. His application of structuralism, narratology, deconstruction, Marxism, and feminism to Tom Sawyer is very enlightening. He concludes the book with a suggestion that the English teachers collaborate with social studies colleagues. He also argues for the inclusion of “non-literary” texts in the curriculum. Sometimes, the introduction of theory to a literature classroom has also been attacked because of the elitist stance of theory vis-a-vis composition classes (Harkin, 1995; Olson, 1994), Prince (1983) is also aware of the overspecialized language of theory and the complaint that theory deviates from teachers’ main business, that is, the interpretation of literary works. Yet he enumerates the benefits of theory—an examination of our assumption about the “literary,” a clearer interpretation, and improved skill in writing argumentative essays. He ends with a hopeful note that there would be a theory major in the future and introduction of theory in high school. In relation to EFL, Broad (1988) speculates that theory as “instances of logical systems” ‘may be compatible in an EFL classroom if English is structurally taught. Some teachers see the promise of theory behind its imposing hurdle. On 10 March 2006 The Chronicle of Higher Education published a survey on perceived unpreparedness of high school students to enter college. Forty-one percent of college professors-respondents and fifteen percent of high school teachers believed that high school students were ill-prepared to tackle the demands of reading comprehension in college. Part of the problem is the difference between developmental reading and literary reading, which I have already pointed out, must differ in pedagogy. As a solution to the disconnection between literacy and literature instructional practices, The key is in explicitly teaching literary theory as a reading strategy to scaffold the transfer of reading skills to more advanced coursework, which is a pedagogical approach to literacy instruction that research has shown to be effective with students in a general English classroom (Eckert, 116). Theory does not need to abandon textual support despite the “vagaries” of interpretation. The ability to pick the appropriate theory for the text is a skill in itself (Tyson, 2001, 6). Terry Ley (1993) compiled as sourcebook based on the five-week institutes conducted at Auburn University in 1985, 1987, and 1988 among 124 high school teachers from 31 states and Guam. Selecting commonly used texts in high school, teachers wrote instructional materials which use literary theories such as Marxism, feminism, and psychoanalysis among others. As a stand point,critical theory “allows teachers to justify what takes place in the classroom and also provides them with a system of evaluating the stance they take on a particular work of literature” (Alley, 24), He states it strongly: “The problematic of interpretation should then become the focus of the secondary school literature classroom” (Alley, 26) Language in Literature I: A Part-by-part Critique This section evaluates the book by showing how its theoretical assumption pervades the selections, lesson introductions, and comprehension questions. I have interspersed benign comments with critical assessment. Theoretical Assumption ‘The textbook espouses a liberal humanist understanding of the text which minimizes the critical interrogation of text in terms of gender, class, and ethnicity. Perusing the themes of the lessons, the book favors a neoliberalist perspective of history where modification is a mark of progress. Hence, literature is subsumed under language learning to achieve functional literacy— literature takes on an ancillary function whereby texts are used as a jumping board to teach grammar and language skills. Cover ‘Two illustrations depict pre-colonial people with the Philippine map as a background. At the lower left portion are a plume and an open book with alibata writing. The nativist “fantasy- production” of Philippine literature appears inconsistent with the tone of the lesson introductions. Organization Although selections are arranged historically, yet it is loosely organized in a historical fashion in order to combine with a thematic approach. The historical treatment is not heavy. Topics/Selections 1. Literary texts are interspersed with formalist lessons plus other language skills (vocabulary, listening, speaking, pronunciation drills, grammar, writing, study and research skills). 2, There is a failed attempt to integrate literature to other language skills (primarily because it works on the assumption that literature is the structural use of language; no problematization of literature’s relation to language). The effect is a forced bridging of literature to grammar lesson (ex: Lesson on objective complement, p 113, uses Augusto Catanjal’s “The Oil Lamp” and Manuel Arguilla’s “The Long Vacation” as sample sentences; Rizal’s “My Retreat,” p 52, used to introduce lesson on words with multiple meanings)10 3. A tokenist gesture towards literature (ex: Number of pages for the text and lesson on point of view and local color for Alejandro Roces’ “We Filipinos Are Mild Drinkers” (138-144) totals seven pages; connecting lessons on idioms, listening to discussion, pronouncing final sounds distinctly, studying parts of a book, future tense, and present perfect tense (145-155) totals eleven) 4, Relatively few literary picces primarily because they are just used for ancillary purpose 5. Ona plus side, the book included relatively unknown and non-canonical texts; yet these texts are not necessarily subversive (ex: Victor Parachin’s essay, p 315, transmits laissez~ faire ideology) 6. Some well-known writers were included yet the absence of eritical literacy model does not invite symptomatic reading (Pierre Macherey) (ex: Dimalanta’s essay on the Black Nazarene, p 296; cf. Set Goal for Reading) 7. Quite a number of good selections are present, yet no transgressive reading cues are offered (ex: Gina Apostol’s “Fredo Avila” and Jose Dalisay’s “Penmanship”) 8. No gay selections so far Examples from non-Filipino writers are used to teach and test literary concepts (imagery, apostrophe, etc.) 10. First reading (legend of Arao and Buan) was written by a certain Percy Hill. 11. If Rizal, Jacinto, and Luna were included in English translation, why are female texts not added in? Is it because they did not write in Spanish? (cf. Gubar and Gilbert) 12. No feminist intervention in the texts of Rizal, Jacinto, and Luna 13, Humanist interpretation of May Day Eve, p 157. 14. Misinformed literary evaluation. Arguilla’s “The Long Vacation,” according to the textbook, is an example of siream of consciousness. In a broader sense, it may be SOC. But the problem surfaces when the textbook declares in page 98 that “The Long Vacation proved that the Filipino short story was no longer bookish, stilted, or melodramatic,” In fact the story is sentimental, not even a good example of Arguilla’s restrained style. 15. For its main reading, the book includes an excerpt from Gen. Douglas MacArthur's speech on the surrender of Japan. To quote him: “I speak for the thousands of silent lips forever stilled in the jungles and the benches and in the deep water of the Pacific” (p 133). One question from Sharing Insights: “What can you do to live up to Gen. MacArthur's expectations?” (p 134) 16. Francisco Benitez’s “What is an Educated Filipino?” is used for an exercise on getting the message of selections. The author's educational background (Western Tllinois State Normal School and Columbia University) is given followed by a literary evaluation: “His essays are written in a clear, simple, unomamented style, and have none of the weaknesses of the works of the First Period mainly because of the training in American schools” (p 135). What does this imply? The essay could have been an opportunity to introduce the Akthusserian concept of ISA to students. (It is a teacher's art to make new10. i. 12. 1 things familiar, and familiar things new. A teacher may explain ISA at the students’ level.) Preface “Roots” appears twice in the preface. This emphasis on going back to the origin is connected to the nativist illustration on the front cover. The textbook tendentiously claims that the selections are “truly representative” and “comprehensive.” Stylistic inconsistency is explainable by the unconscious operation of the implied masculine reader, (Ex: The deixis “student's” shifls to the complement “students”). “Connectivity” is the keyword to the textbook’s theoretical assumption about the function of literature. Ambiguous statement: “Each literature selection serves as the starting point of learning and is accompanied with aids to understand and appreciate better the lessons” (italics mine). What is the lesson? Is it the literary text or the language section? Pre-reading activities are based on schema theory. Because questions simply reactivate previous knowledge, student responses become a mimetic accounting of hegemony. (cf. Foucauli’s pastoral modality of power) Developing Skills sections are limited to development of “literary skill” (read: practical criticism, not eritical inquiry) Teacher as “guide and facilitator” (in whose name?) ‘Address to students: “listen critically and form your own opinion...” (Good injunction, but the book does not promote critical literacy. I have already pointed out the difference in the use of the (erm “critical” between the conventional understanding of critical thinking and critical theory/literacy.) “{I]n grammatically correct language” (Again, literature is a jumping board for language skills; furthermore, reading literature is just an excuse so one can form an opinion expressed “in grammatically correct language.”) Ergo, this “own” is reducible to a tokenist gesture due to the absence of transgressive questions. The textbook should have explained the following inconsistencies: Pre-Spanish oral literature is translated to English, then why aren’t contemporary Filipino texts in vernacular translated too? In the Spanish period, why do Spanish texts appear in English translation while non-Spanish texts by Filipino women (Florentino, de Jesus, Laktaw) not even included? Lesson Introductions Units begin with quotes: one from Femando Bagobanta, two from Westerners—Matthew Arnold and Cobin Wilson—and one anonymous Unit I—Of Long Ago (p 2)2 Lesson |—It Had Begun (p 3) # Lesson 2—It Stood on Its Own (p 24) ©. “celebration of human spirit and of ordinary life” (humanist bend) © Lesson 3—It Blended Well (p 48) © Lesson 4—It Made a Mark (p 64) © Nationalism is equated with patriarchy (ex: Lesson 4: It Made a Mark—absent reference to female participation during the revolution or female text production during the Spanish period; where is Victoria Laktaw? Gregoria de Jesus? Leona Florentino?) © Unit Wrap-Up is basically language skill-centered © Unit 1—Of Varied and Modified Views (p 82) ‘© Striking balance by “follow{ing] the swing of the pendulum” © Lesson 5—Strike a Balance (p 83) © “[Wlise move” needs to be qualified. © “adjusting to the nuances of the English language” (peculiar word choice) © “awesome balance” (vague; yet check the selections for the “balance”— Maramag’s “To the South Wind” and Guerero’s “Where Is My May?”) © Lesson 6—Go for Growth (p 98) © Neoliberal metanarrative © Lesson 7—Sing for Freedom (p 116) * Lesson 8—See New Horizons (p 132) © Confirms again the metanarrative © Unit I1l—Of Distinctive Pattern (p 156) There is an attempt towards syncretism (although the term is not used) © Lesson 9—Put in Your Heart (p 157) © The metanarrative again. © “greater facility” (The textbook’s peculiar collocation would recur in subsequent lessons.) © Lesson 10—Capture the Spirit (p 184) © “It may be unfair when the power-to-be think and decide for its people.” (italics mine) Notice the unusual foregrounding of the impersonal possessive in talking about the martial law years. © “spiritual development” (why spiritual?) © “individual triumph through the human spirit” (again, a humanist progressivist bend, reinforced by a selection on Joaquin’s myth-making project The Aquinos of Tarlac) © Cirilo Bautista’s “Song ofa Tear-gassed Man” comes close to the combination of the political and canonical. Arguably the piece is not one of his best, yet the inclusion could have been due to its overtly political theme. «© Lesson 11—Get Real (p 206)B © “greater facility” (again) Villa is introduced (Shouldn’t this be in Unit Il, p 822) © Selections are Peter Solis Nery’s “Memories” and Gina Apostol’s “Fredo Avila” (no postcolonial treatment of Apostol story) * Lesson 12—Show, Don't Tell (p 234) © Because the only text is Jessie Garcia’s play “Busman’s Holiday” ‘© Unit IV—Of New Waves (p 250) # Lesson 13 Progress (p 251) © Message: optimism amidst multiculturalism © Selections are Lawrence Ypil’s “The Discovery of Landscape” and Luis Katigbak’s “Subterrania” Lesson 14—New Perspectives (p 270) © Includes “Penmanship” (condensed) and Francis Macansantos’ “Global Brotherhood” ‘¢ Lesson 15—Unleashed Vision (p 292) © Selections are non-fiction, a “focus on realism,” to prepare students for the “dense texts in your mathematics and science books” (Cf. Belsey’s critique of realism) © Selections are Dero Pedero’s “The Magic of Action” and Ophelia Dimalanta’s, “The Folk Devotion to the Black Nazarene” ‘+ Lesson 16—New Techno-Culture (p 308) © “human feelings” (Arnoldian) © Selections include Federico Liesi Espino, Jr’s “Poem for My Father” and Linda Bolido’s essay “The Earthbag House” ° Comprehension Questions 1, Attempt for political correctness fails (cf. Sara Mills) (ex: Set a Goal for Reading, p 65, uses “his or her;” Sharing Insights, p 66, starts with a seeming critique of Emilio Jacinto’s description of the motherland, but questions 2 and 3 interpellates the reader as masculine through the use of the possessive modifier “his”) 2. Juan Luna’s excerpt on the role of the Filipino woman (p 49) is included yet not adequately critiqued because Sharing Insights allots four items for comprehension questions and only one for agree/disagree question. Looking at it, I see the distribution tilt towards a reinstatement of the patriarchal ideology. Conclusion and Recommendation If pedagogy is a cultural practice, then our cultural practice of reading and literacy is a form of pedagogy—a way of teaching our students how to do things with texts (Morgan, 31). The textbook definitely performs a pedagogical imperative to train students in literacy. This paper shows that the functional approach towards language teaching has also encroached into the realm of literature. Literature is subsumed into an ancillary of language teaching by use of14 literary texts as jumping board to improve language competence. This theoretical assumption has affected the thematization, text selection, and comprehension questions for the texts. There is a strain of nativist depiction of the nation, Furthermore, the liberal humanist view of history as a progressive march has shaped the texts to emit linear history which hides the uncomfortable tassels of power struggle in the areas of gender, class, and ethnicity. The textbook suffers from the burden of cultural imperialism which assumes that literature is a receptacle of language. Hence, if the aim of language teaching is the formation of communication skills among students, then literature could unproblematically be studied as though it could be isolated from the social practices of textual (re)production. Based on the above-mentioned observations, the paper recommends a number of actions. First, teachers need to reformulate the function of literature in the secondary school curriculum so as to avoid the perceived containment of literature to bourgeois ideology. Literature as rethought by critical theory has the transgressive potential which is stifled by its apolitical use to foster functional literacy. Second, secondary schools should provide training to literature teachers on the development of the field. The discipline has already moved beyond practical criticism to political and critical practice, yet the state of literary pedagogy has not experienced sea change. Third, the canon may still be thought; the teaching of theory in high school literature class could transform canonical texts as faultlines of political engagement. For example, Shakespeare studies transformed itself after new historicists and cultural materialists reread the plays. Terry Ley’s sourcebook also illustrates the possibility of theory in a high school classroom. The late Jacques Derrida has advocated teaching of philosophy in secondary schools. Obviously, the teachers’ training in pedagogy would reshape critical concepts in digestible form. Lastly, if language teaching prefers to still use the functional literacy paradigm, I recommend that literature teaching use a critical literacy paradigm instead, Discussing about the mission of high school teachers, Alley writes, “The overall objective of all teachers of literature should be to equip the students with the means of coping with the texts they will encounter throughout their lives as readers” (26). Specifically, teaching literature should infuse textual rigor with critical vocabulary: For those who work in educational institutions, this is an essential part of our task as teachers and lecturers, that we attempt not only to impart skills in text analysis which are of interest in themselves, but also to make students aware of or enable them to describe effects for whose description they previously lacked the vocabulary (Mills, 1995, 39). Bibliography Agathocleous, Tanya and Ann Dean, eds. Teaching Literature: A Companion. New York: Palgrave, 2003,15 Alley, Douglas. “Critical Theory in the Classroom.” Literary Criticism and the Teaching of Literature: A Teacher's Sourcebook. Ed. Terry Ley. Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), 1993. Pp 21-26, Belscy, Catherine. Critical Practice, Second Edition. London: Routledge, 2002. Belvis, Cyril. Integrating Literary Theories in the Teaching Modules for Philippine Literature in English. Unpublished MA Thesis. Philippine Normal University, 2007. Boyle, IP. “Testing Language with Students of Literature in ESL Situations.” Literature and Language Teaching. Eds, Christopher Brumfit and Ronald Carter. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1986. Pp 199-207. Broad, Yolanda Stern, “Constructing Critical Readers—Pedagogical Approaches to Literature that Make Use of Literary Theory.” Association of the Departments of Foreign Languages Bulletin 19.2(1988): 4-6. Accessed 8 October 2011. Brookfield, Stephen. The Power of Critical Theory: Liberating Adult Learning and Teaching. California: Jossey-Bass, 2005. Brumifit, Christopher. “Reading Skills and the Study of Literature in a Foreign Language.” Literature and Language Teaching. Eds, Christopher Brumfit and Ronald Carter, Oxford: Oxford UP, 1986. Pp 184-190. Brumfit, Christopher and Ronald Carter. “Literature and Education.” Literature and Language Teaching. Eds, Christopher Brumfit and Ronald Carter. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1986. Pp 22.36. Burke, SJ and CJ Brumfit, “Ts Literature Language? Or Is Language Literature?” Literature and Language Teaching. Eds, Christopher Brumfit and Ronald Carter. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1986. Pp 171-176. Chege, Mwangi, “Literacy and Hegemony: Critical Pedagogy vis-a-vis Contending Paradigms.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 21.2(2009): 228- 238 Cioffi, Frank, “Post-Millennial Postmodernism: On the Professing of Literature in the Centrifugal Age.” College Literature 26.3 (1999): 83-95. Collie, Joanne and Stephen Slater. Literature in the Language Classroom: A Resource Book of Ideas and Activities. New York: Cambridge UP, 1987. De Castro, Lourdes. “Literature Teaching in the Philippines.” Teaching Literature: A World Perspective. Eds. Christopher Brumfit and Michael Benton. Hertfordshire: Phoenix ELT, 1995. Pp 50-56. De Riverol, Jenny Elliott. “Literature in a Language Situation—Ole!” Teaching Literature: A World Perspective. Eds. Christopher Brumfit and Michael Benton. Hertfordshire: Phocnix ELT, 1995. Pp 80-87. Eckert, Lisa Schade, “Bridging the Pedagogical Gap: Intersections between Literary and Reading Theories in Secondary and Postsecondary Literacy Instruction.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 52.2(2008): 110-118.16 Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans Alan Sheridan, New York: Vintage, 1995. Foumies, Ferdinand, Why Employees Don't Do What They're Supposed To Do... And What To Do About It. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007. Griffith, Peter. Literary Theory and English Teaching. Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1987. Harkin, Patricia. “On Transforming the English Department: A Response to J Hillis Miller.” Journal of Advanced Composition 15.1(1995), Accessed 8 October 2011 Littlewood, William, “Literature in the School Foreign-Language Course.” Literature and Language Teaching. Eds, Christopher Brumfit and Ronald Carter. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1986. Pp 177-183 McKay, Sandra. “Literature in the ESL Classroom.” Literature and Language Teaching. Bs, Christopher Brumfit and Ronald Carter. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1986. Pp 191-198. Mills, Sara. Feminist Stylistics. London: Routledge, 1995. Mills, Sara, “Knowing Your Place: A Marxist Feminist Stylistic Analysis.” Language, Text, and Context: Essays in Stylistics. Ed. Michael Toolan. London: Routledge, 1992. Pp 182-205. Morgan, Wendy. Critical Literacy in the Classroom: The Art of the Possible. London: Routledge, 1997. Myers, DG. “On the Teaching of Literary Theory.” Philosophy and Literauure 18(1994): 326- 336. Accessed 8 October 2011 Olson, Gary. “Rhetoric, Cultural Studies, and the Future of Critical Theory: A Conversation with J Hillis Miller.” Journal of Advanced Composition 14,2(1994). Accessed 8 October 2011. Patajo-Legasto, Priscelina. “Introduction: Discourses of ‘Worlding” and Philippine Postcolonial Studies.” Philippine Postcolonial Studies: Essays on Language and Literature, Second Edition. Eds, Cristina Pantoja-Hidalgo and Priscelina Patajo-Legasto. Manila: UP Press, 2004.Pp 3-17. Prince, Gerald, “Literary Theory and the Undergraduate Curriculum.” ADFL Bulletin (1983). Accessed 8 October 2011. Qian Jiaoru, “Stylistics and the Teaching of literature to EFL Learners in China.” Teaching Literature: A World Perspective. Eds. Christopher Brumfit and Michael Benton. Hertfordshire: Phoenix ELT, 1995. Pp 143-149. Ribo, Lourdes, Honeylein de Peralta, and Remedios Nery. Language in Literature I (Philippine Literature). Manila: Vibal Publishing, 2010. Scholes, Robert. Textual Power: Literary Theory and the Teaching of English, New Haven: Yale UP, 1985. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. “Introduction from Between Men’ English Literature and Male ‘Homosocial Desire.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent Leitch. New York: WW Norton, 2001. Pp 2432-2438wv Sedgwick, Eve Kosofiky. “Introduction: Axiomatic from Epistemology of the Closet.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent Leitch. New York: WW Norton, 2001. Pp 2438-2445. Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide. New York: Garland Publishing, 1999. Tyson, Lois. Learning for a Diverse World: Using Critical Theory to Read and Write about Literature. London: Routledge, 2001 Addendum 1 A Corrective: Teaching Bienvenido Santos’ “A March of Death” Using Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s Concept of Homosocial Bonding This section offers an example of how critical literacy could be applied to teaching literature in high school. The selection (p 117) is taken from the textbook I have critiqued above. In writing the TSP, I have tried to simplify the critical concept (which for me is a necessity) and imagine a classroom with minimal technological facilities. Despite the limitations, notice how an activity-based pedagogy could be compatible with critical theory. For the sample lesson, I shall employ the teaching strategy plan developed by Kilgore. (See Belvis (2007) for additional modules on selected texts from the textbooks Affirming the Filipino: An Anthology of Philippine Literature by Martinez-Sicat and Rivera (2004), and Philippine Literature in English: An Anthology by Ranario et al (1999) of Adamson University.) Conventional reading: The poem celebrates the soldier who died during the Bataan Death March. The poem has a chorus which suggests the intent of the persona: to uplift the weary spirit of the soldier and to weave a happy memory by remembering him “along the crowded streets of America.” Critical reading: a. The poem shares similar theme with some of Santos’ fiction: nostalgia felt by the protagonist (cf. Faraway Summers, The Day the Dancers Came) b. This nostalgia necessitates a setting: the distance between the protagonist and the motherland. c. This nostalgia is expressed through shared emotions, sometimes exclusively, among male characters. Sedgwick calls this exclusivity as homosocial bonding. d, The motherland becomes a medium of exchange among the male characters which allows homosocial behavior. e. Ergo, the motherland—which is flaunted as the center of the text—recedes to a mere setting for an exclusivist male circle. The persona actually relegates Celia to a setting,18 ‘an item among others which both the soldier and the persona could trade with each other in an effort to reconstruct their common past. TEACHING STRATEGY PLAN PARTI. Objectives and Rationale A. Title: Teaching Bienvenido Santos’ “A March of Death” Using Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s Concept of Homosocial Bonding B. Objectives At the end of the Icsson, the students should be able to: ‘# Identify the homosocial code in the text Roleplay the socialization process in gender formation © Construct a time capsule C, TheConText Theory: Queer theory generally believes that sexuality is a social construct which poses as a natural reality through its circulation in cultural practices such as literature and representation of the nation, among others. Hence, the normative binarism between straight and non-straight is critiqued as an arbitrary differentiation. Concept: Homosocial acts pertain to actions of male characters in the story which suggest same-sex bonding. Homosocial acts need not be overtly erotic. Text: “The March of Death” by Bienvenido Santos (Language in Literature I, p 117) D. Rationale «© Awareness of the complicit nature of nation-building to gender © Foregrounding of gendered assumptions in the text © Retrieval of female heroic contributions in war-time PhilippinesThe March of Death (Bienvenido N. Santos) Were you one of them, my brother ‘Whom they marched under the April sun And flogged to bleeding along the roads we knew and loved? March, my brother, march! The springs are clear beyond the road There is rest at the foot of the hill We were young together, So very young and unafraid; Walked those roads, dusty in the summer sun, Brown pools and mud in the December rains; We ran barefoot along the beaten tracks in the canefields Planted com after the harvest months. Here, too, we fought and loved Shared our dreams of a better place Beyond those winding trails. March, my brother mareh! The springs are clear beyond the road There is rest at the foot of the hill. ‘We knew those roads by heart Told places in the dark By the fragrance of garden hedge In front of uncle’s house: The clatter of wooden shoes on the bamboo bridge, The peculiar rustling of bamboo groves Beside the house where Celia lived. Did you look through the blood in your eyes For Celia sitting by the window, As thousands upon thousands of you Walked and died on the buming road?If you died among the hundreds by the roadside It should have been by the bamboo groves With the peculiar rustling in the midnight. No, you have not died; you cannot die; I have felt your prayer touch my heart As I walked along the crowded streets of America. And we would walk those roads again one April mom, Listen to the sound of working men Dragging tree trunks from the forests. Rebuilding homes- laughing again- Sowing the field with grain, fearless of death From cloudless skies You would be silent, remembering The many young bodies that lay mangled by the roadside; The agony and the moaning and the silent tears, The grin of yellow men, their bloodstained blades opaque in the sun; I would be silent, too, having nothing to say. ‘What matters if the winters were bitter cold And loneliness stalked my footsteps on the snow? March, my brother, march! The springs are clear beyond the road Rest, at the foot of the hill, And we would walk those roads again on April mom Hand in hand like pilgrims marching Towards the church on the hillside, Only a little nipa house beside the bamboo groves With the peculiar rustling in the midnight Or maybe I would walk them yet, Remembering... rememberingPARTI, Activity Sequence 19 # ) ACTIVITY | EXPECTED PLANNED MATERIALS | TIME STUDENT ‘TEACHER FRAME! BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR Pre-readin, T | Show and teil | Students bring out | Assign cut outs in| Assignment | 5 minutes pictures of male | advance. (pictures) groups at work or at play ‘Students post Assist students. Pictures, ‘J minutes pictures on the masking tape, board. i marker Students describe | Ask students: What | Chalk, board 10 the pictures, are the males doing? minutes Where are they? 2 | Acting out Male students Group male students | Pictures 20 group by five. by five. Make sure minutes They pick a you give them time picture to act out. | to prepare. Female students act as audience. _| ‘Some female ‘Assign some female | Malong or students volunteer | students to act as | blanket as “spies” who _| spies. hide under a “cloak of invisibility.” They listen to the conversation of the males 3 _| Processing ‘Spies inform the | Ask spies to report | Chalk, board, | 20 information _| female audience. | what they have pen, paper minutes heard. Use the following guide questions: What do the males talk about? How do they behave? If it were a female conversation, how would it sound? % | Enumeration | Studentsname | After students return | Chalk, board | 5 minutes male-dominated __| to their seats, ask + Note: The time frame is an approximation which may vary among classroom situations. Nevertheless, the lesson aims to be thorough and could extend beyond one session.20 ‘occupations and activities, them to name male- dominated activities. Lecture ‘Students take notes. Introduce queer theory and ‘homosocial bonding. By this time, students already have a hint about the consiructiveness of gender relations. (You may point out the practice of butt slapping during ball games. Why do players do that? Is it allowed outside the game? Elicit possible explanations from students.) ‘Notebook, pen 20 minutes ‘Acquaintance with the author and text. Students listen. Give author background and historical milieu. Pictures of Santos and Filipinos during WW Il 10 minutes Vocabulary building Students give the meaning of unfamiliar words, ‘Assign in advance the words listed under Search for Correct Meaning (p 117). ‘Assignment 5 minutes ‘Reading Poetry reading Students listen. Read the poem. Ask students to pay attention to correct, way of reading poems: no punctuation, no long pause. Language in Literature I (p 117) ‘5 minutes ‘Sharing insights Students group by five. They answer guide questions. Students assign one another a question to recite for the class, Group students by five and give them the following guide questions: 1. Who are the main characters? 2, What is the occupation of the “brother”? Pen, paper 20 minutes2 3. There are two settings for the persona and the brother. Identify them. 4, Which stanza is repeated? What could be the reason for the repetition? 5. For whom have “thousands upon thousands of you walked and died on the burning road”? 6. What bond connects the persona with the “brother”? Cite lines from the poem. 7. Who is Celia? Is she a main character or part of the setting? (You may remind the students of the “cloak” activity and relate it to Celia’s silence. ) 8. How does homosocial behaviour show up in the poem? Cite lines ffom the poem. (You must move around and facilitate discussion. Remind students that they will be asked 10 share their answers with the class.) 10 | Reading for | Students pay ‘Ask some students to | Textbook 5 minutes diction attention to read poem in front. classmates’ reading iT | Recitation Students share | For large classes, —_| Pen, paper 10 Study answers with the __| you may opt for a minutes2 ‘group(optional) class. For the quiz, students help one another understand the question, ‘group quiz. Group mates count off (1- 5). After discussion, students pick a number (1-5). The drawn number corresponds to the student assigned (0 take the quiz. The group’s grade depends on the group mate’s score, Teacher gives an essay quiz taken from one of the guide questions, Post-reading (enrichment activity) 12 Final product: time capsule Male students put inside a box the objects which could have sparked homosocial bonding between ‘the main characters in the poem, Female students put in a separate box the war-time contributions of women not mentioned in the poem. Tell students beforehand to bring ‘mementos Point out to students the objectives of the activity: a) to bring to the open exclusivist male relationships based on patriarchy; b) retrieve heroic female participation in war-time Philippines. mementos: 15 minutes Addendum 2 Frequently Anguished Queries This is a list of possible resistances to the proposed critical literacy paradigm. The issues here range from pedagogical the classroom) to institutional (administrative, curricular, and professional). Though some of the concems are not within the scope of the present paper, I23 deem it crucial to include them as a form of autocritique to the proposal. Fournies’ (2007) slim book is very valuable in understanding the psychology of the workplace. Ok, the critical model is a brilliant idea, How do I impart it to my students? We're too busy already. «It’s too specialized. I don’t know how to do it. © If my students can’t even construct grammatically correct sentences, how do I expect them to demonstrate higher order thinking skills? + It's too difficult to construct an objective test for your lesson compared to the conventional way we teach literature. If I give students essay tests, can I cope with the paper overload? + There might be anthologies of critical essays on particular literary texts. Yet we don't have adequate sources on teaching critical theory available in the Philippine market. © How do I juggle critical literacy, the tcacher-student ratio, and the teaching overload in my school? «Critical literacy entails knowledge of the social/cultural production of texts. This means going beyond the formalist approach (the text only) and reading in diverse disciplines (philosophy, cultural studies, history, ete). I don't even know why I should prioritize critical literacy over practical skills like grammar and the four macroskills © That’s exciting, Yet I also need collegial support from like-minded teachers. Is there @ professional association among literature teachers where we could read our papers on literary theory and criticism? © Let’s face it. There’s politics on the formulation of syllabus, departmental exams, and the coercion to coverage. I’m a newbie and I don't want to make enemies. * ’'mtaking MA in UP, but I can’t even apply what I’ve learned once | return to my classroom. Corporatism is lurking and just jumps at you anytime. (Corporatism could covertly appear in many forms: temping, mantras—such as “students as clients,” “teacher factor,” ete—tedious monitoring through paper works, surveillance over radicals, and gentrification)