# data[].attributes.body
I was intrigued by Patricia Hill Collins when she addressed her social location when she wrote Black Feminist Thought and how each time she taught the course she revised the materials based on the feedback of her course.  While the perceptions of Black feminism was not favored by her students, just by taking out the term “feminism” they loved the materials as long as they did not know it tied to that word.  Also when she talked about her situated standpoints was too narrow as an individual and how it caused the “white students” to skip class leaving on the “black student” it was realized that a judgment was made on how a person’s knowledge and social grounds shapes their vision.  As our society and diversity continues to grow and intertwine, how do we capture and find the common ground to avoid the split in the power system?  Is it avoidable?

# data[].attributes.body
What challenges me about Collins is the notion that an idea loses validity based solely on who created it. I understand people are in different places in life and reach different conclusions based on their life experiences, but I think if an idea can help or inspire someone or create positive change, the idea alone should stand by itself separate from its creator.

# data[].attributes.body
I thoroughly enjoyed the Brookfield and Holst reading about radicalizing education. I appreciate that they speak to education as the cornerstone of democracy, as it is a sentiment that I share, though I feel that it applies more to public education than adult education. Although I feel the role of public education is a much more powerful tool for educating the electorate to responsibly steward our democracy, I agree that we need to be doing more to educate adults in responsible citizenship. Much like we need to teach adult learners to become savvy consumers of online learning, we need to teach adult learners to be savvy consumers of social and political ideology. I think this is especially true in today’s world where the political landscape has become so polarized that people now frequently blindly follow their chosen political party and can’t envision a situation in which they would vote against their party. One thing I find challenging from their ideas is their call for democratic socialism. Equity is the most important social issue to me and I agree with most of the principals behind socialism, I feel that politics should be left out of education. I see the role of education to be to prepare people to make informed decisions for the benefit of society, but not to further influence their political views beyond that. I did find it interesting that the authors want to use adult education to teach people to resist dominant ideology, then presents their preferred ideology which they argue the adult learners should adopt.

# data[].attributes.body
Collins' text, where she discussed her teaching background and school community reminded me a lot of a TED Talk I watched recently where a woman named Rita Pierson explained how policy makers were putting into place policies that didn't make sense. Or that the system was set up, and creativity was being lost, and yet teacher's taught regardless. They kept to their values and beliefs that the future resided within the hearts and minds of the children. That was the only common goal that everyone agreed on. Even within my teaching, I was able to relate with Collins'. Working at South Shore k-8, which is inner city title 1, we are faced with the huge dilemma of addressing equity within the school. We have a hugely diverse student population and faculty and as the students grow into adults, or we as a faculty shape their existence, we are faced with figuring out how to work together as a community with different religious views, gender, ethnicity, background, every factor I can think of but my view is that it is one of the most important things we can do.

# data[].attributes.body
Reading the Brookfield and Holst piece reminded me of Paolo Friere’s work using drama as a way to identify social power and injustices. Friere would use different drama related games and improvisations to identify who had the power in a situation. I feel like the motive of adult learning in Brookfield and Holst’s piece is similar to Friere’s motive – teach the people about inequalities so they know to demand something different.

Collins’ piece was a little more relatable. Seattle Schools have been doing a lot of work around addressing race and equity in our schools. A speaker I saw last year as part of this training related racism to feminism. I thought that argument was useful because more people could relate to sexist behavior than may have had experiences with racism. However, a colleague disagreed and pointed out that conflating the two disregarded the experiences of black women who deal with racism and sexism both separately and concurrently.

# data[].attributes.body
The reading the most resonated with be is that of Brookfield and Holst who explain democracy and socialism as a combined force behind adult education. I have always related the word socialism to radicalism. Reading this chapter has changed the way I view democracy and socialism. Brookfiled and Holst state, “For us a democratic socialism is a political and economic arrangement designed to answer one fundamental question: How best can we arrange society to foster compassion and enhance creativity?(p8)”  I completely agree with this statement how can we become a safe environment for creativity, I believe the answer lies with figuring out how to work with one another, regardless of age, sex, gender or ethnicity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Juliet Marillier

How politically correct is your character list? Within the limitations of your setting, how wide a range of ethnicity, skin colour, age, gender, sexual orientation and ability / disability do you include? Do you play safe and focus on a narrower range of characters reflecting, perhaps, the demographic of your target readership? Or do you provide a broad snapshot of your story's setting without even needing to think about it?

In my recent novel, Heir to Sevenwaters, it becomes known that a significant character - let's call him X - is gay. This is not a major story development, though it does play a role in the future of a couple of characters. It simply comes out in conversation, and our protagonist is a little surprised that she has remained unaware of it until then. Her immediate acceptance of the revelation without any fuss mirrors the way I would respond if I were in her situation.

This particular aspect of the book sparked some interesting feedback. Although there are some bold fantasy writers out there - Jacqueline Carey comes to mind, with her liberated society of Terre d'Ange where the guide to sexual behaviour is 'Love as thou wilt' - I think fantasy readers are mostly quite a conservative lot. Many of my readers already knew X, a major character from the previous book in the series, Child of the Prophecy. They didn't know the nature of his relationship with his close friend, Y.

Firstly, some readers congratulated me for including a gay relationship in a no-fuss, positive way. I was pleased, since that was exactly what I'd intended to do. Secondly, some (female) readers expressed disappointment that X was not going to feature in a heterosexual love story at some point in the series. I'd expected this reaction and could completely understand it.

The third reader response troubled me. One or two people thought this development was not right for the character - they saw it as inconsistent with the way I'd written X in the earlier books. Now, a writer never likes to hear that her characterization isn't working for readers, especially when good characterization is a particular feature of her storytelling. I couldn't quite work out why anyone would say this about X, because the bond between X and Y was there from quite early on, though it could at that stage have been no more than close friendship. Why didn't it ring true for some readers? I'm not sure. Maybe people don't expect to find a gay character felling opponents in combat or leading a daring raid into enemy territory. Some may wonder why I chose to put a gay character in the story at all, to which my response would be, why not?

Let's go back to the question of how inclusive a cast list may plausibly be, not just in terms of sexual orientation, but also ethnicity, age and all those other parameters.

For me, it's all about context. Forget political correctness (as demonstrated in the carefully multi-racial student body of Hogwarts School.) Just stay true to the setting and style of your story. Let's say your book is set in a small outback town somewhere in Western Australia. In such a town you'll find Anglo-Celts, Australian indigenous people, people of Asian extraction and a variety of others. There'll be a wide age range. There'll be people with disabilities. Attitudes in such a small town will be conservative, so people's sexual orientation may not be public knowledge. How much of this you want to put in your story is entirely up to you as writer. What story do you want to tell? What elements do you need to do it the best you can? Just make sure you know your setting and its people, so what we see of them - a lot or a little - rings true.

If the story is set in early medieval Ireland, as mine is, most of the characters will be light-skinned Celts. The age range will reflect the shorter life spans of the time - if a person survived the years of childbirth, battles, nasty accidents with pitchforks, there was a reasonable chance of living to, say, fifty. Disabilities? They were treated quite differently in those days. Sexual orientation? The relationship between X and Y might not have been as readily accepted as it is in my book, but I had a dual purpose in including it. As well as fitting neatly into the plot and theme, it allowed me to demonstrate my central character's outstanding quality, the one that makes her the emotional heart of the story: her readiness to accept difference.

How broadly focused is your current work? What factors determine your cast of characters?

Photo credit:

© Joanne Zh of Dreamstime.com

Filed Under: Print This Post
CRAFT, REAL WORLD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Juliet Marillier How politically correct is your character list? Within the limitations of your setting, how wide a range of ethnicity, skin colour, age, gender, sexual orientation and ability / disability do you include? Do you play safe and focus on a narrower range of characters reflecting, perhaps, the demographic of your target readership?

# data[].attributes.body
The first article “Looking Back, Moving Ahead: Scholarship in Service to Social Justice” written by Patricia Hill, was an interesting read. Patricia arrived at St. Josephs community school to work multiple roles; a middle school teacher, curriculum developer, and a community organizer. She explained that this school had an incredibly diverse workforce. They were presented with the challenge of building a community across differences of race, class, gender, age region, education, religion and ethnicity. They all had to become adult learners, so that they could work together to help their students reach success. I thought it was great that Patricia Hill stated that she realized that her ability to think critically was key in accomplishing this goal. She then described that both the school staff and community got together to teach one another about various social justice perspectives. The biggest point Patricia Hill made in her article was the importance of being critical thinkers as adults. As adult learners we need be open minded and willing to learn from others around us. This will allow us to expand our knowledge base in a relevant way. Stephan Brookfield's and John Holt's first chapter in their book titled, Radicalizing Learning: Adult Education for a Just World, was an eye opening read. Adult education is a topic that has many key components to it. I really enjoyed the author's description of  radical adult learning. On page 3, Brooksfeild and Holt stated that radical adult learning means “returning to the roots of adult education to rediscovering its essential purpose and mission”. We must never forget why we are adult learners. Many of us will be working with adult learners in the future. We must understand that adult learners come from different backgrounds, have different careers, and have their own goals for their education. We must strive to fit the needs of all learners. Only then will we be successful as educators.

# data[].attributes.body
First and foremost, thank you, Stacey, for bringing Patricia Hill Collins’ work into our course. Her scholarship and contributions to the field as both a scholar and activist is remarkable. What challenged me the most in reading “Looking Back, Moving Ahead: Scholarship in Service to Social Justice” are the questions Collins posed that have anchored her scholarship: “What accounts for social injustice? What can we do to foster social justice?” (p. 20). These are two questions I have constantly asked myself repeatedly especially as an educator because we are influencing the minds of our students; therefore, I want to be intentional in my work when integrating social justice topics. I think we have the responsibility to mold the minds of students to be critically conscious about the world, dismantle systems of oppression, and impact the world to truly progress society where there exists equitable treatment, opportunities, and policies for all. While academia is the driving force to advance educational opportunities, it is also a source of inequality. Academia is inaccessible or difficult to navigate for those who may not possess the cultural, social, and financial capital. Furthermore, I agree with Collins that academic language needs to be more accessible, so communities can use research and information for practice. Additionally, academia needs to value and leverage people’s narratives. With these pieces in mind, educators can “explore the connections among critical pedagogy, engaged scholarship, and politics of knowledge production” (p. 17) to engage students within a social justice framework that will prepare them be productive members of society.

I also thoroughly enjoyed the concept of intersectionality being a “traveling theory” (p. 21). This reminded me of how we have come to define globalization as a movement of “ideas” across national borders. When the term intersectionality has traveled across national borders, its definitions have been redefined by the social locations to make it relevant within that particular social context. This type of intellectual capital has been used not only to influence other theoretical frameworks and models, but for social justice activism, which I think is impactful.

# data[].attributes.body
I appreciate the article by Patricia Collins and I'm reflecting on how I interrogate knowledge systems and question structures that reinforce those inequities.  I think this is critical to social justice and liberating my education as well.  For example, Collins expands on her students rejecting classroom norms of learning and states, "They refused to read knowledge projects, outside of power relations, reminding me of the iterative nature of knowledge and the power relations that produce  it for people seeking justice" (p. 20).  If we are not asking who gets to engage in the process of scholarship and who produces knowledge and what power is leveraged to reinforce that knowledge than we are engaging in oppression--not social justice.  What I struggle with is the theory to practice aspect with regards to intersectionality in service or in my case, professional practice. In 'looking back' at the history of higher education, I think about groups that were (and still are) historically left out of education such as students of color. In 'moving forward' I feel that I can interrogate policies or systems that maybe don't align with social justice values and how I can bring forth changes.  I relate this to Collins' question and comment that  intersectionallity is pointing to social justice and explaining current patterns of social injustice--intersectionallity has the capacity to reveal both.

# data[].attributes.body
I liked how Patricia Collins' excerpt calls out feminism and the work it has done for white women. As a white women, I cannot even begin to understand what women of other races face. It would be unfair of me to say "I know how you feel", because I do not.  Sharing one identity with another (in this case being a woman) does not mean that all share the same privileges. Being aware of this and of intersectionality will help  stop current patterns of social injustice because people can no longer say "well, we are fighting for women's parity" (even though, they mean white women's parity). Therefore, I agree with Patricia Collins that intersectionality can and will foster social justice.

As for the Radicalizing Learning text, I found their ideas challenging to accept because I have been taught that socialism is "bad" - as Brookfield and Holst put it...it's unpatriotic and un-American. Especially, since I come from the Corporate America world. It can be difficult to detach from the capitalistic system. I do, however, think they make some great points on how to create a more fair and just society. I do believe that people should enjoy the fruits of their labor and not just work their life away for a company that only cares about their profit margin. I do believe that people should be able to have more say in things that affect them the most, instead of having people vote on an issue they are so far removed from. Take our current political system. People who are not even been teachers make decisions about our youth's education. People who do not even send their own children to public school make decisions about the public school system. I do believe that people should feel fulfilled by the work they do and have the opportunity to be creative. I know that when I don't feel like I am contributing to a bigger cause, I am miserable at work which affects me personally. My main concern with their theory, though, is that WILL people divide resources equally? Will the farmers of America divide their crop evenly for all or will they feel inclined to keep more for their family since they worked so hard to harvest the crop (even if they hide the extra crop)? It will still be "perceived" as an equal society even when it is not. Is it human nature to share equally or is it human nature to compete? Will people really put the work in to learn about all people's needs and all the resources available to them? It sounds like hard work to create a society that Brookfield and Holst suggest, and I would be interested to see a poll of the American people that are up for the challenge.

# data[].attributes.body
I was challenged by Collins article on the idea of democratic socialism. I tend to forget that we live a comfortable life where the educational system is somewhat equal but even more unfair in different part of the region. This new context goes beyond learning and teaching but how we perceives the whole system treating every individuals. Holst does raise some interesting point, but from experience I must argue that education should be separated from politics. Education is a powerful tool in creating new era. I say this because during the instability time of Korea, many scholars view the young adult learners as the most dangerous political opposition, their willingness to learn and challenge inequality is far beyond imagination. And I stand on this notion that such intellectual activism is important in community building.

# data[].attributes.body
Thank you for adding your experience to the conversation.
-Dr. R

# data[].attributes.body
Great work engaging with these challenging texts!  I am really enjoying the posts!

For some conceptual clarity, I offer a definition of the following:
--Dialogical knowledge: process of defining and redefining bodies of knowledge; aims are linked to social justice (Collins, 2012; Anfara & Mertz, 2014)

and for more further reading on Intersectionality, I suggest a piece by Kimberle Crenshaw, who coined the term, which gives some background on the history of the term.

-Dr. R

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. R - We are in transition once again from an Ipad school to a Surface school. How can we make this move smooth - for all constituencies? We are called to continue using the devices, all technology, as tools to enhance learning, not the learning itself. We have a continual conversation about the role tech plays in our curriculum, with the ultimate goal always that it enhances student learning. We need clarity as to why we are switching devices. We need also to be able to justify the integration of the device into our curriculum - does it improve student learning? How are we making the devices accessible to all? Values and mission are deeply interwined in this conversation - equity, integration, justice, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
I will second Sara’s sentiments that Patricia Hill Collins’ article was a challenging read—not necessarily that her ideas opposed mine, but that they were difficult for me to understand fully.  Her approach regarding intersectionality was fascinating to me because I’ve always been interested in building more awareness and knowledge of how things like race, age, gender, class, and ethnicity interact with one another.  I am glad that she notes that these interactions can lead to unjust power systems.  Unjust power systems are a reality of our world that cause significant challenges for some, and significant gains for others in such a subjective way.  The portion of Collins’ work that I gravitated toward the most was when she realized that she must first teach herself before she could teach others.  If we are not willing to be open to learning new things ourselves and questions our own understanding, how can we expect others to be motivated to learn from us?

# data[].attributes.body
While reading about “Radicalizing Learning,” I was most challenged by the authors’ idea of democratic socialism as the context and seeming goal for adult learning. When I began the chapter, I was intrigued by their initial discussion of radicalism in general and their brief argument that the field of adult education has become conservative and fearful over time.

But during the ten or so pages that they defined and discussed the tenets of a democratic socialist society and their view that “radical adult learning is an observable shift in knowledge and skill regarding the creation and maintenance of democratic socialism,” I concluded that their ideal society is a utopia that can never possibly exist. Although I found it interesting in a theoretical sense (who doesn't want to live in a utopia?), I couldn't quite decide to what extent their view was actually useful.

While reading each of their points, I observed that there was no discussion of how power dynamics actually play out in the “real world,” and the inevitable pushback from those in political, economic, or some other form of power. And how would current societies ever transition into this in the first place? If such a change was forced upon society as a whole, I can’t imagine that such a society would ever actually succeed since there wouldn’t be 100% acceptance of it.

As a result of my disagreement with the premise of this foundational piece of their view on adult learning, I had a difficult time engaging fully with the rest of the chapter and truly accepting their view on radical adult learning as an authority. My opinion may change if I were to read their entire book, but as for now, I'd love to hear others' perspectives and if I'm somehow missing something from that selection?

# data[].attributes.body
Looking Back, Moving ahead: Scholarship in Service to Social Justice provided me with a framework around intersectionality and social justice that was identity-affirming.  Collin's description of intersectionality through the framework of her three projects were of most interest to me, and yet I found to be most difficult to accept as multiple truths. Her second project which, "interrogates intersectionality as a knowledge project that shifts shapes within specific material, social, and intellectual contexts," (pg. 21) causes me to name the confusion that I have seen in and out of the classroom when approaching and attempting to tackle social justice. Collins highlights how intersectionality has implications of being defined, and yet the very characterization of the term is to be fluid and changing depending on how identities converge. Furthermore, the question she leaves the reader with, "is intersectionality...a social theory that explains theory? Or.. can we use it to foster social justice?" provides a challenge critical to how education will continue to move forward. For the sake of brevity, I would like to share my favorite quote from this article, "I had to teach myself before I could teach others, thus practicing the skill of creating new frameworks versus endlessly criticizing those advanced by others," (pg. 16) a thought pattern I identify with and I believe has been exemplified in this course.

# data[].attributes.body
Wow. Honestly, I was challenged by Dr. Collins' essay, as I am afraid I am not well versed in terms such as dialogical knowledge production and intersectionality. For the former, I assume it has something to do with understanding the two-way nature of teaching and learning and the necessity of creating a dialogue between educators and learners. As to the latter--intersectionality--it is so important to understand ourselves and view our students, coworkers, and others as unique individuals who cannot be reduced to simple stereotypes. I do appreciate the push her writing gives us to see intellectual activism and engaged scholarship as means to social justice and community building.

I appreciate Brookfield and Holst, and they have indeed challenged me to consider their thoughtful advancement of their version of democratic socialism, radical adult learning, and adult ed as a
"force for political detoxification." I think I could have a lively debate with them, however: having lived in China in the early 1980s, I experienced first hand the contradictions and shortcomings of their vision. I tend to fall on the side of keeping politics out of the ESL classroom, at any rate, except to the extent of encouraging critical thinking and freedom of thought and expression, and of assisting in developing the kinds of language skills that will bring fulfillment in an English-speaking environment.

# data[].attributes.body
Very interesting post.  Can you say more about the 1-to-1 program and how this challenges the values of the school?
-Dr. R

# data[].attributes.body
Patricia Hill Collins speaks to a commitment to fluidity when trying to synthesize disparate pieces of information from a variety of stakeholders.  She uses the example from her time teaching middle school where her staff “agreed on nothing except teaching, nurturing, & empowering the youth.”  This commitment to fundamental values reminds me of Brookfield & Holst asking their key question, “How best can we arrange society to foster compassion & enhance creativity?”  The challenge I am faced with is how to be fluid like all three authors in their ability to take on differing viewpoints.  I am intrigued by the intentionality required to stay consistent to values, and wholeheartedly agree this must always come first.  The question that arises for me is how to synthesize diverse viewpoints when core values are also in opposition.  It reminds me of work in schools, where decisions impacting students must be balanced and held in the same fluid state Collins identifies.  What do we do when decisions made do not connect to school values or mission?  How do explain to students, parents, and the larger school community that the school is moving to a 1-to-1 program when it is unclear how this matches with our educational values for example?