The Experience of Policy - Essay Example

Most contemporary literary dis especially in academic circles is considered incomplete or at best immature and informal if it does not in one way or another inculcate aspects of certain literary traditions to which the text in question should be related. Therefore, a major concern for many literary critics is getting the most suitable theoretical framework under which a text can be critiqued. This has essentially made literally criticism less about the reader and the text, since the connection between the reader and the text is mediated by the retrospective information the they have gather about the theory or theories they intend to apply to it. For example; if one carries out a critique of Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby”, they will often be required to assume a postmodern, post-colonial or feminist perspective just to mention a few, otherwise their work will be substantially wanting in term of validity and scholarliness. While conceding that critical theory indeed plays a significant role in the interpretation and dissemination of various texts by rendering them in social-cultural and politically relevant to a multiplicity of audiences, it has its own downsides. The most important one for purposes of this paper is that it limits, to a great extent the readers flexibility and personalization of their understating of the text since they will automatically try to align the text with existing theory. Ergo, they are potentially prevented from interpreting it in new hitherto unconsidered ways unless they intend to come up with their own theory. This paper will attempt to prove that texts do not necessarily need to be restricted to specific theoretical frameworks or models and it will illustrate this by discussing the various advantages and disadvantage of applying specific literary tradition by the three assigned books. Andrea Fishman’s “Becoming Literate: A Lesson from the Amish” is a text that examines the Amish society in the context of education and its value as well as mode of impartation to the children by the families schools and society at large (Fishman 246). Fishman describes the various types of learning in which the children engage and describes the general attitude towards learning, which is decidedly less casual than is the case in the non-Amish backdrop. If someone were to attempt a conventional literary or curtail analysis of the text, they would likely select a theoretical framework related to pedagogy such as the social learning theory. Admittedly, this would be quite helpful since it would direct the reader into forming an understanding of the way the children interaction with adults in a social context is useful in their intellectual growth without the pressure of competition and texts as one would expect in school. She claims around the end of the essay that Amish children are not expected to move past eighth grade (Fishman 246), this implies that the children could stand to perform better owing to lower expectation and pressure which could be among the children in mainstream schools do not do so well. However, while admitting that a theoretical outlook would potentially provide a pathway to deeper insight into the leaning system it may be different in some ways. For one the reader will be restricted to one or just a few theories, consequently their scope of interpretation could be limited given with the parameters of these theories. For example, if the critics select the social learning and maybe post-modern approach, they will have little room to think of the historical background of the Amish and their social economic setting, which has resulted in the present cultural tendencies. Without the ceiling of a specific theory, one can for instance focus on the personality of the child in question compare it with a variety of social economic and political factors as which construct its environment. In this way, they can try to decipher the underlying significance of the actions as well as predict a possible future course for the community on the supposition that the prevailing factors in the present day may change in posterity. When comparing similar text form a theoretical perspective, one needs must apply the same theory on both, this is another limiting factor of theory based text discourse. While different texts may appear to be similar based on a shared thematic thrust, it is unequivocal that no two independent texts can be the same. For example Shirley Brice Heath’s “Literate Traditions` essentially demonstrates relative degree of similitude with the previous text, therefore it may appear natural for both of them to be examined under the same theoretical lens. Granted that both of them discuss learning techniques of children in a socially constructed setting, once again social learning or constructivism theory may be applied. Undeniably, this could be very illuminating not only by helping the reader understands the two texts in different contexts; nonetheless it does portend a certain degree of disorganization and incompleteness in exposition. Heaths text is based on two hypothetical towns where the community treats children differently from birth and this is discussed in the educational context so as to demonstrate how the social conditioning of children plays out in their capacity for developing academic acuity (Heath 304). Despite the obvious parallels that justify the need of a similar theoretical framework in case of a comparison, there are elements of the two stories that are radically different and hence difficult to unite under the same theory. One critic may think that Heath’s narrative is best expressed from a Marxist point of view by comparing the three towns based on the various social economic statuses, considering this it is markedly difficult for a comprehensive comparison to be carried out on any texts owing to the frequently differing points of view. Ideally, the most open theoretical point of view is the reader response criticism under which a reader is simply required to respond to the text without having to refer to any theoretical framework. Essentially, this theory provides an n avenue through which readers may interact with text freely without the hindrance of a scope of limitation, concerning the argument being made herein, this is the most liberating mean by which text can be analysed. Lynda Workman’s text is the final text in this analysis; she talks about the various policies that she and many other have to adhere to as social worker drawing from both her experiences and those of her friends and colleagues (Workman 749). Even though she concedes that policy is often helpful in helping organizations run smoothly, she cite several examples of when policy is either a stumbling block to doing the right thing or simply redundant and contradictory making it difficult to reasonably apply in some situations. This text can weigh in the argument that although they are important in the reading of a text, theoretical interpretations can also be a hindrance to understating or appreciating the full meaning in the contextual setting. Max Weber’s organizational theory is an obvious choice in this case given that matter of policy are closely related to bureaucracy which is a core area of his theoretical works, in a nutshell it is a theory that seeks a sociological understanding of the workings of formal organizations and their interaction with their environment. Through it, the text can be critiqued based on the various demands that policy makes on employees and the negative impacts can be elucidated by pointing out the connections between the fundamental reason that policies exist; which is help run organizations and contrasting this to the real damage they are seen to cause in narrative. However, the text is open to numerous other interpretations and the reader may deem a postmodern or critical theory or any number of different theories fitting for the texts analysis. Should such a case arise they may be forced to write extensively giving each theory a degree of attention based on how important they view it. However, if one was left to critic from an open point of view, they would simply focus on what is most important to them and after discussing it they would then see which theory best fits making their work more independent reader-centric and comprehensive. Furthermore, should one wish to carry out a comparative study between the all the three texts, they will undoubtedly run into difficulties trying to find a theoretical model that could accommodate all of them given the relative thematic disparity between the first two and the last passage. Assuming that the first two fell under social learning and the last under organizational theory, they will be forced to look for any commonalties that may allow them to cut across the theories while using the same theories or come up with a neutral one. At the end of the day, they may resort to manipulation of the interpretations to make them fit with theory. In summary, despite the fact that theoretical lenses contribute a great deal to textual analysis and comprehension, they can also hinder the latitude of interaction between the reader and the text and it is recommend that critics should be given more flexibility to decide if they wish to study text based on a framework or not. Works Cited Heath, Shirley Brice. “What No Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at Home and School” Language in Society Vol. 11, No. 1 (Apr., 1982), pp. 49-76. Workman, Lynda. “The Experience of Policy”. Phenomenology Pedagogy, Vol. 10. (1992). Fishman, Andrea. "Becoming Literate: A Lesson From the Amish" in Andrea Lunsford, Helena Moglen and James Sleving. Eds. The Right to literacy. (pp.29-38). New York: The Modern Language Association of Amrica. 1990 Read More