Composition Forum 19, Spring 2009
http://compositionforum.com/issue/19/
Alexander, Jonathan. Literacy, Sexuality, Pedagogy: Theory and Practice for Composition Studies. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 2008. 225pp.
Public toilet sex scandals. States looking to codify discrimination into law. Celebrities outed in popular blogs. Reality television programs that represent queerness not as a challenge to the status quo, but as completely congruent with the values of consumer culture. These are but a few examples of the sexual signposts that say so much about the shifting attitudes of our times. Given the importance of being able to decode such signs, it comes as no surprise that objectives related to sexual literacy have recently made inroads into the composition classroom. Among the scholars leading this push is Jonathan Alexander, a compositionist whose past work has focused on technology and writing, in addition to sexuality studies.
Alexander’s latest book, Literacy, Sexuality, and Pedagogy: Theory and Practice for the Composition Classroom, aims to “bring critical work in sexuality studies…to bear on our understanding of literacy” (36). To this end, he builds on the work of Brian Street, arguing that literacy must be understood not as an apolitical tool, but as a process inextricably bound up in the ideologies linked to families, schools, and other institutions. Thus, sexual literacy is not merely comprised of basic knowledge; rather, it is a deep “understanding of the ways in which sexuality is constructed in language and the ways in which our language and meaning-making systems are always already sexualized” (18). Alexander’s definition of sexual literacy gains even more traction when he explains the implications of sexual illiteracy: people who are sexually illiterate cannot decipher the complexities related to their own bodies, desires, relationships, and status within the social hierarchy. In short, to be sexually illiterate is to be “disempowered” (63).
Unfortunately, Alexander claims, not enough is being done in composition classrooms across the country to promote critical sexual literacy. Implicit in his argument, then, is the criticism that composition pedagogy is perpetuating the kind of disempowerment that results from being unable to read the sexual texts of our day–whether they be on our bodies, in our laws, or awash in our media and popular culture. In light of this problem, Alexander envisions his book “as both a theoretical and pedagogical intervention (27),” and an opportunity to continue the productive work initiated by composition’s “social turn.” He imagines his audience neither as the already converted nor the social conservatives who would likely be horrified at his project, but as those writing instructors looking for guidance on how to integrate sexual literacy into their courses. For such readers, Alexander promises to explore three central questions: 1) How are students already writing about sexuality—and what does this writing reveal about their grasp of sexual literacy? 2) How is sexual literacy a prerequisite for literacy in the general sense? and 3) How can teachers encourage students to write thoughtfully and critically about sexuality?
The first chapter, “Discursive Sexualities: Bridging Sexualities and Literacy Studies,” is devoted primarily to an overview of the key theorists and tenets in sexuality studies, as well as a discussion of how this field holds promising connections for literacy studies. Among the wide array of major scholars discussed here, Michel Foucault figures prominently in sexuality studies’ discursive turn. This discursive turn constituted a shift away from a rigid view of sexuality—the notion that it’s simply an internal drive best left to biologists and psychologists—to Foucault’s vision of sexuality as a “socially constructed and historically situated” phenomenon (41). Alexander explains that Foucault’s seminal work helped launch a host of critical disciplines and lines of inquiry including lesbian and gay literary studies, Judith Butler’s notion of “performativity,” queer theory itself, and current scholarship on sexuality and citizenship. Because it led to examinations of the relationships between sexuality and society, the discursive turn ultimately paved the way for a closer analysis of the ways in which sexuality is constructed within language. Alexander uses sexuality’s linguistic character as a jumping off point to propose his “‘literacy turn’ in our understanding of sexuality” (58). As explained earlier, Alexander’s idea of sexual literacy owes much to Brian Street’s ideological model of literacy acquisition.
Chapter one concludes with a case study of how these theoretical aspects of sexuality and literacy studies can be explored in the composition classroom. The study focuses on “Sex on Film,” a second-term writing course taught by “Molly,” an instructor at the University of Cincinnati where Alexander worked as director of composition from 2004 to 2007. Molly and Alexander both conclude that the course was a success, based on a number of objectives that were fulfilled. First, in terms of student engagement, Molly relates how her students were thoroughly invested in class discussions and their own writing. But beyond just demonstrating interest, the students, according to Molly, illustrated an impressive ability to think and write critically about representations of sexuality in contemporary film. As case in point, Alexander cites an essay in which a student “argued cogently that rampant female nudity devalued women’s bodies while the lack of male nudity essentially maintained a sense of privilege around male genitals, figuring men and their private parts as ‘something special’” (71). This kind of writing, Alexander argues, exemplifies students’ capability for making sophisticated connections between sexuality and literacy. As further evidence of success, Molly notes that “‘the class made [the students] realize the number of other ideas about sex that exist out there’” (70). In essence, like many other writing courses modeled on cultural studies, Molly’s course strove to raise consciousness and achieve the kind of “desocialization” promoted by Ira Shor.
This case study was invaluable to me as a composition instructor who is very much interested in bringing sexual literacy into the classroom, but is still figuring out how to do so effectively. Molly’s writing prompts and assignment ideas helped to crystallize how sexuality and literacy can be productively linked. Of course, it would have been interesting to hear about the complications that arose, as well as the things Molly would do differently the second time around. Additionally, I noted—with a certain amount of envy—that Molly was able to develop her idea for a term-length, research-based course. However, early on, Alexander claims that his “approach in this book is not focused on analyzing and promoting entire courses organized around sex and sexuality topics” (26). Consequently, Molly’s case study left me feeling—despite Alexander’s insistence otherwise—that sexual literacy might be best explored in courses focused exclusively on these particular themes and issues, rather than in first-term composition classes that frequently touch on a variety of topics.
Chapter two, “Beyond Textbook Sexuality: Students Reading, Students Writing” investigates how students write about sexuality outside the classroom as well as how composition textbooks treat issues related to sexuality. Based on his comparison of forums for student writing on sex (including college newspapers and social networking websites) with articles on sexuality in first-year writing textbooks, Alexander concludes that “students writing in newspapers about sex do so not only with greater explicitness, but also, in many ways, with greater sophistication” (92). To illustrate this point, he excerpts several instances of sophisticated student writing on the issue of sexuality, including an article from The College of William and Mary newspaper in which the author makes a convincing argument against the censorship of explicit sexual discussion. In contrast to this kind of complex student writing, Alexander cites the results of his own survey of composition texts. Among a number of interesting findings, this research showed that texts rarely identified queer authors and frequently omitted queer readings; moreover, when queer selections were found, they were limited to coming-out stories and debates over same-sex marriage. Because of the dearth of inspiring materials or ideas in these textbooks, Alexander concludes that “paying attention” to student writing is the more productive path for forging connections between sexuality and literacy in the classroom (93). Again, as proof of this point, he offers a case study of a course in which students were able to move beyond superficial discussions to a more sophisticated questioning of issues related to sexuality. (And, it should be noted that this course did not focus solely on sexual literacy, although how this may have impacted a thorough investigation of such issues is not broached.)
One curious point related to Alexander’s discussion of textbooks is his contention that “issues of sex and sexuality are not widely—or well—represented or taken up for consideration in first-year writing courses” (90). While he admits that this is merely a “hunch,” he uses his survey of first-year texts as evidence of this belief. To an extent, the logic of his connection makes sense. Given the continuing labor problems related to teaching college writing, it’s no stretch to imagine many composition instructors—underpaid, overworked, and rushing from campus to campus—relying on textbooks as the cornerstone for their courses. Yet—and this is admittedly my hunch—there are likely many instructors who are integrating issues of sexuality into their courses in a sophisticated, creative, and innovative fashion. Of course, I do believe Alexander’s contribution is much needed, as it pushes the conversation about writing and sexuality in productive directions; my exception has more to do with the tying of textbook content so tightly to conclusions about widespread teaching practices.
The next three chapters form a trilogy of sorts around a number of key sexuality issues and their implications for the composition classroom: 1) orientation, 2) gender, and 3) marriage. In his discussion of sexual orientation, Alexander explores how queer theory can encourage students—especially self-identified straight students—to grasp the constructed, per formative nature of sexual identity categories. To this end, he recounts his pedagogical experiment of creating a hoax website entitled Straightboyz4Nsync for one of his classes. In doing so, Alexander and his class focused on teasing out “the story of straightness”—the expectations and characteristics that society has firmly affixed to (in this case, male) heterosexuality. Because society’s construction of sexual orientation is so closely linked to gender, he introduces the constructedness of gender as the central issue for the following chapter.
To get at this notion of gender as a social construct, Alexander suggests instructors apply transgender theory to their pedagogy. He acknowledges that while defining transgender is “tricky,” the goals of “many self-identified trans activists and theorists are to create cracks on the monolithic structure of gender identity and to search for wiggle room in what William Pollack has aptly termed the ‘gender straightjacket’” (129). In short, trans theory can help people fully realize the wide array of gender-related choices available to them. To these ends, Alexander recounts an in-class exercise in which students write from another gender’s perspective. His reflection on the exercise is as interesting as the assignment itself because he engages in self-critique, wondering if it was his writing prompts that encouraged students to construct narratives imbued with gender stereotypes. Additionally, he questions whether the class’ ensuing discussion of gender stereotypes actually translates into “increased sociopolitical agency,” rather than just basic awareness.
In the penultimate chapter, Alexander examines how marriage can function as a productive topic for developing sexual literacy in writing courses. Because marriage is deeply personal and political, he reasons that students can gain a critical understanding of the institution they may eventually take part in and vote on (with respect to same-sex marriage). But, importantly, Alexander encourages instructors to envision courses and assignments that go beyond the polarized gay marriage debate. As an illustration of this complex approach, he discusses a colleague who organized an advanced writing course around the theme of marriage. However, rather than privilege the same-sex marriage issue, this instructor “was invested in helping students develop sexual literacy; that is, he wanted students not just to argue about marriage but to use research and critical thinking to explore how marriage actually works in our society, how it has been codified and discussed, and how its definition is constantly undergoing reexamination and revision” (160-161). Alexander concludes the chapter arguing that a course such as the one described above matches what scholars such as Richard E. Miller envision for the future of composition. Specifically, a course centered on the complexity of marriage could challenge students “‘to propose viable solutions to the insoluble problems of the twenty-first century’” (172). Again, though, the case study of this particular course suggests to me that for sexual literacy to be explored productively in writing courses, it must be done over the length of an entire term, rather than limited to an isolated unit or assignment.
Alexander saves his final chapter for addressing the different types of resistance that this kind of pedagogy can elicit. For example, in anticipation of other instructors questioning if this approach to composition really works, he enumerates the ways in which he has seen student writing improve markedly, from issues such as word choice to critical thinking and awareness of audience. I was almost hoping Alexander would extend this argument to the resistance emanating from powerful, conservative forces beyond the academy. Then again, the David Horowitzes of the world are unlikely to be impressed with the idea of sexual literacy in the writing classroom, regardless of the defense. In terms of student resistance, Alexander notes that he has fortunately never had someone object to course material related to sexual literacy. But, because student resistance is inevitable in some quarters, he suggests that instructors adopt the approach articulated by Russell Durst in Collision Course as a way of meeting student needs: “we should embrace a critical literacy that ‘focus[es] on the political…[as] a critical part of students’ intellectual and moral development’ and acknowledge students’ interest in getting good jobs” (195). Finally, in an engaging anecdote from his own teaching experience, Alexander relates how students may project negative notions associated with the status quo onto their instructors, and consequently resist instructors’ progressive arguments about the social construction of gender and sexuality. Such instances of self-reflection constitute some of the most inspiring moments in the book, as they encourage us to examine how effective our own teaching philosophies, syllabi, and assignments can be within the context of higher education and student assumptions.
Ultimately, Alexander makes good on his threefold promise to 1) explore the ways in which students are already writing sexuality, 2) synergize the fields of literacy and sexuality studies, and 3) investigate possibilities for getting students to write thoughtfully about sexuality. For sure, those already “sold” on the idea of introducing sexual literacy to the composition classroom will come away with ample ideas on how to do so productively. And it is conceivable that a good number of skeptics could be convinced that sexual literacy is indeed an important path to critical literacy in general.
Review of Alexander, LITERACY, SEXUALITY, PEDAGOGY from Composition Forum 19 (Spring 2009)
Online at: http://compositionforum.com/issue/19/literacy-sexuality-pedagogy.php
© Copyright 2009 Sean Murray.
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License.
Return to Composition Forum 19 table of contents.