[NLA] Cutting Edge Research

[Mev Miller]

On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 01:44 PM, Thomas Sticht wrote:

> On the Women and Literacy (Womenlit) discussion list sponsored by
> the National Institute for Literacy I recently came across a couple of 
> the
> "cutting edge" questions that Dr. Greenberg is struggling with. I left 
> the
> list after reading the questions and a couple of responses to the
> questions posted by others, one of which reported the definite "fact" 
> that
> 10 percent of the population of adults is gay,  puzzled as to what
> particular issues in adult literacy education these questions were 
> aimed
> to resolve. I also wondered how this work might be used to approach the
> Bush administration and new Republican-lead Congress to advocate for 
> the
> field of adult literacy education. I wonder if others have any 
> insights as
> to how this might be done.
> Tom Sticht
>

Tom,
When I first read this message, I had a  reaction similar to Janet's 
and Andres'. Why would you leave the womenlit list and pose your 
questions to another group in such a way that seems as if you are 
ridiculing the conversation and it's participants? Then, as I read more 
closely, it seemed that at the end of your statement that you may be 
posing an argument often heard in coalition politics that goes 
something like this....
"we CAN'T allow or acknowledge gay issues on our (feminist, 
anti-racist, labor, whatever fill in the blank - in this case adult 
literacy) platform because if we do so it will threaten our position 
and our ability to gain whatever we're struggling to gain. Those issues 
are divisive and don't pertain to us." In this case, the ramifications 
are made even more threatening especially in the Republican Bush 
administration and Congress that is definitely anti-gay. The verdict 
may still be out about its views on adult literacy unless we prove 
ourselves undoubtedly worthy of consideration so why make it worse by 
allowing conversations about or research on gay issues into the mix?

And I would answer that it is PRECISELY because of the the power, 
language, identity economic issues (based in racism, sexism, classism, 
ableism, xenophobism)  affecting the field of adult literacy that we 
must recognize the place of the many issues of diversity related to 
adult education. The reality is that any one of these issues may affect 
a conservative administration's inclination to support us. We cannot 
pretend to be neutral and rigorous and research-based and hope that all 
of those power issues will "disappear" or be "mute" (or moot)! To do so 
does a grave injustice to the students we supposedly want to support. 
In my more hopeful moments, I actually believe it is through the adult 
literacy movement that some fundamental changes can be made in our 
society.

Perhaps one way to approach how this might be done is to have some 
integrity and spine about it (unlike unclear platform liberal 
democrats) and come up with a clearly articulated and socially just 
platform addressing adult literacy issues. These would include not 
merely rigorous research-based provability on concerns for curriculum 
and assessment and standards achievement but also founded on 
acknowledgment and humanitarian social justice concerns and and 
encompassing the complexities and possibilities for these inclusions as 
well.

As Andres clearly outlined, there are many reasons to include glbt 
issues in our research and curriculums.
The remainder of my remarks actually answers one of Daphne's subsequent 
remarks on the womenlit list reflecting on responses from list 
participants. I am posting this both here and on the womenlit  list.



On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 09:41 PM, Daphne Greenberg wrote:

> Deborah and Sylvan raise an interesting question:
> Is it important to know the percentage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or
> transgender people in adult literacy classrooms?
> Any thoughts???????
> Daphne


I always have lots of thoughts when it comes to issues of lesbian and 
gay, bisexual and transgender and queer issues in education.

I believe that talking about percentages is extremely misleading. In a 
U.S. context (indeed even around the world) where lgbtq people's are 
discriminated against, denied human rights (jobs, housing, education), 
subjected to religious-based denigration (all religions), abhorred, 
beaten, killed, what does it really matter what the percentages are? 
Will it mean that such discrimination will magically disappear? 
Probably not. Will it legitimate more money for research -- whatever 
research we feel is necessary? Maybe - it would probably depend on the 
purpose of that research. Would it change educational funding? 
Unlikely, given how much under siege funding is anyway. Actually, 
having the numbers to justify funding may just contribute to the sense 
of competition and horizontal hostility among disenfranchised groups 
positioning for those few "special interest / diversity" funds that do 
exist.

As someone mentioned in an earlier post (Deborah?), what exactly do we 
count? Identity and self-identity, especially around issues of 
sexuality and attraction, is kind of a slippery slope. Sure, there are 
some people on either end of the continuum who are ONLY heterosexual or 
ONLY homosexual. Many (most?) individuals (whether they publicly admit 
it or not) experience a range of sexual/affectional/emotional 
happenings. One homosexual encounter does not a homosexual make! One 
heterosexual experience does not a heterosexual make, either! I know 
many individuals who over the course of a lifetime have considered 
themselves straight, then gay, then bisexual-- or any other combination 
of changing circumstances. These experiences are affected by 
attractions to individuals whom they meet over time and in a variety of 
contexts. At what point  along this humanity continuum do they get 
"counted" when we try to establish percentages of the population as 
glbt? This area is filled with controversy as well - a recent example 
comes to mind. The current crisis of pedophilia in the Catholic church 
is being scapegoated onto gay priests. As many of us know, child 
molesters -- including those who go after children of the same sex -- 
are most often heterosexual in their own defined sexuality.

Also, when this number of 10% was first  "identified" -- easily some 30 
years ago -- it mostly referred to gay men, then lesbians. With the 
more historically recent inclusion of bisexuals and transgendered and 
"queer" peoples, it seems more likely this number could well exceed 
10%!  And, even if we DO determine that 10% (more or less) of the 
population is glbtq folks, we know that this number involves and 
affects a much larger circle of people -- family members (siblings, 
(grand)parents, children, grandchildren, aunts uncles, cousins, etc), 
friends, colleagues and so on. If this large array of persons -- 
regardless of whether they have positively or negatively acknowledged 
their lgbtq acquaintance --  they too are then affected by the 
discriminations against lgbtq peoples. This broadens the 10% 
considerably -- so why is the 10% (or any other figure) important then? 
As we have seen, because women constitute 52% of the world's population 
does not mean that research monies or socially just activities follow! 
As we have seen with all social justice issues based on race, gender, 
age, language, culture, ability, size, sexual expression, the numbers 
of people affected does not mean or guarantee that their human rights 
will be honored, respected, promoted, observed or that research monies 
will come forth or educational curriculum will be changed!

In this culture, everyone is treated and assumed to be heterosexual 
until proven otherwise. This assumed heterosexuality rightness 
(supposedly based in religious belief) has become the foundation for 
our legal, institutional, economic, cultural and psychological SOCIALLY 
gendered constructions and systems for family and relational practices.

Adult learners/students are like the rest of us in society. They may or 
may not themselves be gay or lesbian. They may or may not be wrestling 
with their own issues of sexual identity. They may have colleagues who 
are gay or lesbian. They may have family members who are gay or lesbian 
and they may be wondering about their own feelings about it or 
wondering what kind of allies they can become. Maybe they are parents 
or grandparents trying to figure out how to be supportive of their own 
children / grandchildren. They may be wrestling with their emotions as 
a best friend or acquaintance has recently confided in them about their 
own sexuality. They may be new to this culture in which so much 
sexuality is talked about so publicly. They may be from a culture that 
has no qualms about gayness or no recognition of gayness.

At this point, the research on the myriad of glbtq issues in adult 
basic literacy are practically non-existent. There are a few exceptions 
and I have compiled a short bibliography of the research I've found.

I have started to outline some of the possible research questions we 
generally could ask and wonder what others you might add to this list. 
I will end by listing some of these questions.

• What are the numbers? Do we have any way of knowing what percentage 
of adult learners are gay or lesbian? By population, we might assume 
10% but given the types of oppression gay youth encounter, might the 
numbers be disproportionately higher? Do gays and lesbians and 
transgendered persons use literacy services? With what frequency? Does 
homophobia in learning centers keep sexual minorities from using those 
services? And given my earlier reflections, does really knowing these 
numbers actually get us anywhere useful?

• How would we go about identifying these learners? And if we do, what 
ramifications will this have for their ability to receive state 
assistance or their ability to find and maintain work? What are the 
social service (work, health, parenting, education, housing, etc.) 
ramifications of asking these questions?

• How do programs and/or teachers reinforce heterosexuality and deny 
homosexuality? What affect does this have on the lesbian and gay, 
bisexual and transgendered and queer and heterosexual learners?

• We know that experiences of violence affect the ways in which women 
learn and accomplish their education— (I refer you to the important 
work that Jenny Horsman and Janet Isserlis are doing). What similar 
pressures and barriers might exist for lgbt persons? What are the 
effects of heterosexism on learning? Are there learning styles unique 
to sexual minorities?

• I have been asking literacy workers about what women-centered 
literacy materials they have been using to bring up issues and topics 
and oppressions of importance to women. What literacy basic reading 
materials are available on topics of homosexuality and how have 
educators used them?

• What pressures and issues are felt by lgbt literacy workers and 
volunteers? What pressures and experiences of heterosexism and 
homophobia do they experience? What happens for us in our classrooms 
and professional organizations when issues of homosexuality are raised? 
Where do we find support for our (in)visibility? How do we combat 
homophobia and heterosexism?

• What curriculums can be written on lgbt issues? What are the ways 
such curriculum could handle the vast array of social and justice 
issues pertaining to issues of homosexuality in schooling and society? 
How would this curriculum intersect with the functional needs of 
literacy currently being stressed? What training would be needed among 
literacy workers to have these curriculums be used effectively?

• Perhaps we could address this question from a different angle. What 
if we were all assumed to be (simply) sexual beings who at various 
points in our life might experience a range of sexual/affectional 
activities or expressions? What if the criteria for such relationships 
was NOT based on the gender (race, class, ability, size, adult age) of 
who you have sex or relationship with, but rather based on whether 
those relationships bring out the best in us as persons fostering 
respect, growth, support, companionship, learning, love -- humanity? 
How more meaningful and stronger would our families and relationships 
become? How might this broader question affect the ways in which our 
curriculums are constructed and our educational institutions handle the 
vast array of sexual issues before them?

  This is a short list, I’m sure there are many more questions that can 
be added. I encourage you to take up these issues. In general, what are 
the power, language, economic, social, educational, identity and other 
ramifications raised by having open and critical dialog on such 
questions?

Mev

WE LEARN
Women Expanding: Literacy Education Action Resource Network
www.litwomen.org/welearn.html
Mev Miller, Ed.D., Coordinator
welearn at litwomen.org
_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org