Rogers 08

Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
Linguistics and Education 19 (2008) 107–131
A critical discourse analysis of racial

literacy in teacher education
Rebecca Rogers a,∗ , Melissa Mosley b
aUniversity of Missouri St. Louis, College of Education, 369 Marillac Hall, 8001 Natural Bridge Road,
St. Louis, MO 63121, United States
b University of Texas-Austin, Curriculum and Instruction 1 University Station Austin, TX 78712, United States
Abstract
What does racial literacy look and sound like in a teacher education book club? Using the tools of critical discourse analysis, we
describe, interpret and explain how each member of the group draws on a range of discursive and embodied resources for racial
literacy; particularly, how they maneuver the book club discourse to resolve what constitutes anti-racist action in the book. In this
article, we demonstrate the complex ways in which the students seek to make meaning around this issue and in doing so, draw on and
develop a set of semiotic tools we refer to as racial literacy. We trace the multiple modes (visual and linguistic) used by individuals
and the shifts in these modes over the course of the conversation. Such shifts, we argue, hold the potential for the development of a
more intricate form of racial literacy.
© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Critical discourse analysis; Racial literacy; Book club conversations
1. Introduction
Why is it that White people have a choice of whether or not they want to deal with or discuss issues of racism? If
they feel too uncomfortable, they can laugh it off. Or, as Winnie’s parents did in the story (Iggie’s House), they
can just ignore its existence and carry on with life as if nothing is wrong. Why is it that people of color do not
have a choice about dealing with the issues of racism as they encounter effects of racism on a seemingly daily
basis? Why do people of color carry the burden of explaining their culture and background, understanding the
ignorance of White people, and dealing with the racist attitudes and actions directed at them for no other reason
except for the color of their skin? They do the work. (Faye’s journal entry)
As part of a book club in a literacy methods course, Faye, an African-American woman, wrote the above entry in her
journal. In this journal entry, Faye uses the verbs “deal with” and “discuss” interchangeably when referring to the White
characters’ engagement with issues of race. Faye’s choice of verbs foreshadows one movement in the conversations
about race in her book club, the question of the role of talk in social action. She also refers to a familiar form of white
engagement called “white talk,” (McIntyre, 1997) in which White people “ignore its existence” or “laugh it off,” in
which “it” refers to racism. From Faye’s perspective, people of color have to directly engage with the material effects
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 314 516 5797.

E-mail addresses: rogers3948@aol.com (R. Rogers), mmosley@mail.utexas.edu (M. Mosley).
0898-5898/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.linged.2008.02.002
108 R. Rogers, M. Mosley / Linguistics and Education 19 (2008) 107–131
and consequences of racism. Rather than dealing with racism through talk, people of color are expected to “carry the
burden” of explaining their culture, understanding the ignorance of White people and dealing with racist attitudes and
actions. Faye’s talk, writing, and actions, alongside that of her peers in the course, work together to construct particular
meanings – what we refer to as racial literacies – around race, racism and anti-racism in the context of their book clubs.
As European-American teacher educators and researchers, we learned about the tension between talk and action
and how working with this dialectic led to a deeper understanding of race, racism and anti-racism. Early in the course,
we found that our European-American students tended to focus their cultural analysis on people of color and did
not interrogate whiteness as a racialized identity. Therefore, we designed a book club with children’s literature that
included White people grappling with racism, white privilege and anti-racism. Faye, Jenna, Chelsey and Todd, teacher
education students in the second of two of our literacy methods courses, were members of one of four book clubs that
read children’s novels relating to the theme, “Struggle for equity: anti-racism from history to present day.” The books
present White people as racialized and shift the gaze from people of color to White people or as Morrison (1992) writes,
“from the racial object to the racial subject; from the described and imagined to the describers and the imaginers; from
the serving to the served” (p. 90).
Across the contexts of the book club discussions, the students’ written records and whole class discussions, we
asked the following research questions: What does racial literacy look and sound like in a teacher education book
club? How is meaning made around race, racism, and anti-racism across semiotic modes? How might the network of
discourse practices help us understand the practice of racial literacy?
Using the tools of critical discourse analysis, we describe, interpret and explain how each member of the group
draws on a range of discursive and embodied resources for racial literacy: particularly, how they maneuver the book
club discourse to resolve what constitutes anti-racist action in the book. In this article, we demonstrate the complex
ways in which the students seek to make meaning around this issue and in doing so, draw on and develop a set of
semiotic tools we refer to as racial literacy. We trace the multiple modes (visual and linguistic) used by individuals
and the networks of these modes over the course of the conversation. Such networks, we argue, hold the potential for
a fuller understanding of racial literacy.
2. Related literature and theoretical frameworks
2.1. Racial literacy
Racial literacy, a concept that evolved in a parallel fashion in the fields of critical race theory and whiteness
studies, has been explained as having both micro- and macro-dimensions. From the field of critical race theory, Guinier
(2004) poses racial literacy as a paradigm shift away from racial liberalism, which is represented by the decision
of Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Racial liberalism includes the perspective that African-American students
are psychologically disadvantaged by racial segregation in schools. The effect of such a perspective is that an end to
segregation and colorblindness will remedy the social, political, and economic disparities in U.S. society. Brown did
not provide White people, in particular working-class and poor Whites, with a language for the coercive and divisive
elements of race and racism. Nor did it address the residential segregation that holds educational inequity in place
(Ladson-Billings, 2004; Shapiro, 2004). Instead, Brown perpetuated the idea that when racial segregation dissolves,
each individual’s opportunities will place her on an even playing field.
In contrast to racial liberalism, Guinier (2004) names “racial literacy” as an interactive process in which the frame-
work of race is used as a lens to explore social and legal practices, explicating the relationship between race and power,
and examining mitigating variables such as gender, class, and geography. Racial literacy recognizes the historical
meaning of race – that race is a socially constructed category that functions to maintain social hierarchies – as well as
the economic outcomes that race creates. Although a perspective and not a solution, racial literacy recognizes the tan-
gible and intangible outcomes of race as a social construct and racism as a mechanism for powerful groups to maintain
social, political, and economic advantage. Racial literacy recognizes the interest-divergence dilemma, in which race, a
“tool of division and distraction” has been used to pit working-class European-Americans against African-Americans
by creating a system where jobs and educational opportunities are part of a zero-sum game (Guinier, 2004, p. 99).
Guinier’s conceptualization of racial literacy relies on historical, economic and institutional practices and locates racial
literacy at the institutional level, rather than at the individual level, an absence Twine (2004) addresses.
R. Rogers, M. Mosley / Linguistics and Education 19 (2008) 107–131 109
From whiteness studies, Twine (2004) defines racial literacy as a set of “micro-cultural social processes” (pp. 881)
springing from “. . .earlier interdisciplinary work on racism and anti-racism in black studies and whiteness studies by
providing a micro-cultural empirical analysis of the ‘labour’ that White parents perform as they translate and transform
the meaning of whiteness, blackness, and racism in their families of reproduction” (881). Twine (2004) further defines
racial literacy as “resources,” “pattern of practices,” (pp. 882) “conceptual tools” and “racial vocabularies” (pp. 884)
that White parents use to “actively train their children to resist racism” (pp. 882). Thus, her conceptualization of racial
literacy involves a set of social practices which can be taught and learned and also includes a positive theorization of
whiteness which includes anti-racist practices. Twine calls the work of the White parents a type of racial literacy that
is also a form of “invisible labour” (pp. 900). She writes, “although they do not occur [anti-racist strategies] on the
picket lines in view of organized anti-racists, they, nevertheless, constitute one type of anti-racist project” (pp. 902).
An important aspect of Twine’s (2004) work is the attention paid to the teaching and learning of racial literacy, an area
of significance for teacher education.
Of particular interest for the present project is the practice of racial literacy in the context of teacher education. Sleeter
(2001), among others, have argued that explorations of race and culture must include an examination of whiteness, as
nearly 90% of teachers and teacher education students are White (cf. Ladson-Billings, 1999 in Marx & Pennington,
2003). There are rich examples in the literature of how university students, especially Whites, participate in discussions
about the relationship between whiteness and racism (Chubbuck, 2004; de Frietas, 2005; Levine-Rasky, 1998; Marx &
Pennington, 2003; McIntyre, 1997; Schick, 2000; Seidl, 2007; Willis, 2003). Researchers have found that many White
students show ambivalence towards discussions of race and racism (Levine-Rasky, 1998); maintain silence around
issues of race because they were in mixed race company out of fear that they would say the wrong thing (Case &
Hemmings, 2005; Trainor, 2005); or avoid discomfort talking about race at all, in fear of sounding racist (Marx &
Pennington, 2003).
Other research has documented how White teachers and university students are often unaware of their racial positions
and espouse a colorblind ideology, in which whiteness is privileged and reproduced (e.g. McIntyre, 1997; Schick, 2000).
McIntyre’s (1997) now classic study, for instance, describes “white talk” as naturally occurring talk that shores up the
common privileges Whites share while avoiding the roles they play, both individually and collectively, in maintaining
racism. Whites talk themselves out of individual responsibility for current articulations of racism by “derailing the
conversation, evading questions, dismissing counterarguments, withdrawing from the discussion, remaining silent,
interrupting speakers and topics, and colluding with each other in creating a ‘culture of niceness’ that made it very
difficult to ‘read the white world”’ (McIntyre, 1997, pp. 46). Further, McIntyre (1997) finds that interrupting other
speakers, silence, switching conversation topics from whiteness and privilege, blindly accepting racist notions and
stereotypes, talking over another speaker, participating in collective laughter to ease anxiety and stress, and collusion
with other Whites serve to further keep interrogations of privilege at bay thereby paralyzing the critical examination
of whiteness and re-centering whiteness as normal.
Such scholarship points to the need for the practice of racial literacy amongst White teachers and teacher educators.
Recently, what is referred to as the “third wave whiteness” scholarship (Twine, 2008), includes a re-theorizing of
whiteness studies to include a multiplicity of identities that take as their point of departure, “the understanding that
whiteness is not now, nor has it ever been, a static, uniform category of social identification” (Twine, 2008, pp. 6).
This re-theorization of whiteness resists the essentializing tendencies of locating White racial identity as stable, a point
duBois (1903/1982) made over a century ago. This opens the possibility for a more positive theorization of White
racial identity that includes a more detailed rendering of learning.
Some of the work located in anti-racist scholarship has provided a more nuanced view of whiteness. For example,
Lipsitz (1998) has demonstrated the transformation of White identities. In the context of education, literature-based
discussions focused on cultural difference, for example, those in Trainor (2005), Florio-Ruane, Raphael, Glazier,
McVee, and Wallace (1997) and Lewis, Ketter, and Fabos (2001), often lead to discussions about material, psychological,
and discursive forms of racism that exist in society as well as illuminate multiple perspectives and ways of viewing
the world. Other scholars have considered the fluidity and social construction of narratives about race. McVee (2005)
traces the discourse patterns embedded within the narratives of a White teacher over the course of a semester. This
teacher retold the same narrative of her first experience entering an African-American school six times over the course
of the semester. She found that across multiple retellings of the same narrative that the structure and evaluations of the
narratives changed from a colorblind ideology to recognizing her position as a White woman and wondering about the
consequences of her positioning.
It is possible, then, for white talk to construct and represent positive and progressive understandings of White racial
identity development such as in the case of White allies (Lipsitz, 1998; Stokes-Brown, 2002). When White people
directly engage (with other Whites as well as with people of color) in discussions around race, racism, and anti-racism,
and use linguistic strategies which center (rather than dismiss) their responsibility as White people, this too, becomes
a form and function of white talk.
Given this landscape, racial literacy, then, involves a set of tools (psychological, conceptual, discursive, material)
that allow individuals (both people of color and White folks) to describe, interpret, explain and act on the constellation
of practices (e.g. historical, economic, psychological, interactional) that comprise racism and anti-racism. Narratives
and counter-narratives are tools of racial literacy—they both structure and represent lived experiences and offer the
opportunity name one’s own experience and reality (e.g. Bell, 1992; Perry, Steele, & Hilliard, 2003). Within the context
of teacher education, narratives are often used to introduce and explore matters of culture, race and diversity (e.g.
Florio-Ruane, 2001; McVee, 2004) through literature. Florio-Ruane (2001) notes that cultural understandings reside
in collective (e.g. public discourses, family stories, and common-sense understandings) and individual narratives.
Narratives are comprised of discursive histories, which have both social and cognitive threads, as van Dijk (1993)
points out. Indeed, the use of narratives and literature can help readers imagine social spaces where racial justice is the
norm rather than the exception. In practicing racial literacy, a person uses the discursive resources and storylines that
are available to them through their interactional histories and in putting these storyline to work, become a certain type
of person (Davies, 1990).
2.2. Discourse in/as social action
Because racial literacy, according to Guinier (2004) is inherently concerned with material conditions, a theory
and method for understanding the relationships between discourse and action is needed. Critical discourse theories
assume that social problems, including racism, are largely constituted, reproduced and resisted through discourse and
their associated actions (e.g. Norris & Jones, 2005; Scollon, 1998). Discourses have material consequences—certain
actions are taken or not because of how social problems are framed. Indeed, discursive frameworks are rooted in
materialism (e.g. Callinicos, 1993; Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999; Scollon, 1998; Shapiro, 2004). Material theories
of race combine structural and institutional factors, which structure racial hierarchies. That is, theorists argue that
the consequences of racism are more than discursive or psychological, but result in inequities (economic, political,
and educational) across racial lines. Therefore, we assume that actions are embedded within discourses and, related,
discourse is a form of social action (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997). Through action, people produce the chain of events
that come to make meaning in particular ways.
In their book Words that Wound, Matsuda, Lawrence, Delgado, and Crenshaw (1993) argue that there are clear
links between words and deed. They point out the relationship between “the violence of the word” and violent crimes
(e.g. psychological, physical, and economic). They write, “from the victim’s perspective all of these implements inflict
wounds that are neither random nor isolated” (pp. 24–25). We cannot separate the talk, such as direct (or indirect) racist
language, that constructs racism at the level of individual interactions and larger social practices from the material
impact of racism on people of color. A parallel argument can also be made for the ways in which anti-racist talk can
reconstruct individual positionings and social relationships.
Racist meanings are also constructed and perpetuated through symbolism as much as through talk and texts because
meaning is constructed by an array of materials and modes (e.g. Smitherman & van Dijk, 1988; van Dijk, 1984,
1987). News, media, movies, and other visual texts communicate messages about race that are read by viewers.
Racism, for instance, often exists in the form of microaggressions, “unconscious and subtle forms of racism,” which
are pervasive in social spaces (Solorzano, Cela, & Yosso, 2000) and can manifest themselves through any semiotic
mode.
Calling on the dialectical relationship between the semiotics of representation and social practices becomes necessary
to understand the emergence and development of racial literacy. “The embodiment of meaning,” Kress (2003a,b)
explains is, “how meaning is made through the eye, the ear, in your mouth, or through the ear. . . all of these are
equally important in meaning making” (interview, 2003, pp. 7). Each mode makes certain kinds of commitments about
meaning, intended or not (Kress, 2000). In the multimodality of discourse and interaction, say for example in a book
club conversation, choice (and design) become central issues. Thus, meaning making involves choosing to represent
and interpret across an array of modes (visual and verbal). Intended or not, such choice indexes a person’s positionality
in any given context. Within racial literacy, a study of changes and shifts in discursive practices may index agency and
social action (Davies, 1990; Wortham, 2005).
For too long, racial literacy and the discursive practices associated with racial literacy have been unavailable to
White people as are the articulation of semiotic resources used to develop anti-racist practices. Thus, it becomes
unimaginable for people to write themselves into a narrative in which White people can be working towards anti-
racism. If participants have access to alternative discursive practices they can design new forms of meaning. Thus, our
goal in this study was to take stock of the resources available (and displayed) by the participants in this book club,
describe how they intermingle with other narratives and resources and make a recommendation for what aspects of
racial literacy might need further development.
3. Research design and methods
The data presented here were part of a larger, yearlong study focused on how pre-service teachers learn to teach
literacy within critical literacy frameworks. The research design rotated between “watching,” “asking,” and “analyzing”
in an iterative manner that informed our teaching. We collected data in form of video- and audio-recordings, fieldnotes,
interviews and document collection on the following components of the class: seminar discussions, tutoring sessions,
small group discussions, book club discussions and pre- and post-interviews.
We, the teacher educators and researchers in this study, are European-American women, teacher educators and
literacy researchers who study literacy learning across the lifespan. We both actively integrate anti-racist perspectives
in our scholarship. Over the course of the year, each of us performed roles as teacher educators and researchers in the
courses, collecting data and leading discussions, providing lectures, and observing and debriefing with the students.
During lectures and discussions, our pedagogical stance was to model the types of teaching that we advocated for
our students – approaches that are culturally relevant, critical, and anti-racist – and therefore we stayed close to their
experiences in course topics and discussions.
It is within this context that we situate our analysis of the book clubs. We draw from multiple data sources including
videotaped book club conversations, fieldnotes and participants’ written artifacts (e.g. journals and online discussions).
We were particularly interested in a research design and set of analytic tools that would allow us to trace the resemi-
otization of discourse across conversations and contexts, which signals learning and transformation (Chouliaraki and
Fairclough, 1999).
3.1. Context
The participants are pre-service teachers at a mid-western university enrolled in a teacher education program. The
guiding principles of the teacher education program stated that graduates of this program will be committed to equitable
and just education for all students, will know the subjects they teach well and know how to teach, and enact the role
of inquirer. Several of the classes in the program are required of both undergraduate and graduate teaching degrees
and, as a result, our classes included both levels of students. Our class included four graduate students and eleven
undergraduates. Fourteen students were European-American. There was one African-American woman enrolled in
class. Thirteen of the students were women and two of the students were men. When we asked the students to write
their cultural autobiographies, we learned that they were diverse in terms of their geographic, religious, and socio-
economic backgrounds (McCarthy, 2003). The program follows a cohort model and the students took three literacy
courses together. Two of the literacy courses were located at an urban elementary school and included a practicum
component.
Every Tuesday during the academic year, the teacher education students met at an urban elementary school from 2:00
to 5:00. The school was geographically located in an African-American community in a metropolitan city, about 3 miles
from the university. The community experienced change in the mid-20th century as White residents moved suburban
communities and African-American residents of the Liddell neighborhood were displaced from adjacent areas. Grand
buildings, including the school building are traces of the middle and upper class communities that were once here, and
now, families who attend the school live below the poverty line. The university class, held in an unused classroom,
included a practicum as well as a seminar. In addition to reading and discussing the selected texts, students were asked
to design and implement literacy lessons for an elementary student, write and revise their cultural autobiography, and
write a reflective essay as part of their course assignments. The book club, which we focus on in this study, had four
components: reading, discussion, reflecting in journals and a whole class discussion (Florio-Ruane, 2001; Raphael,
Florio-Ruane, & George, 2001).
Early in the course we noticed how the European-American students in class tended to focus their cultural analyses
on people of color and did not interrogate whiteness as a racialized identity. In a deliberate pedagogical move, we chose
literature for the book clubs that included White people grappling with anti-racism. We selected four books: Iggie’s
House (Blume, 1975/1983/2001) Maniac Magee (Spinelli, 1999), Darby (Fuqua, 2002), and The Jacket (Clements,
2002). We selected these books because they represented a range of genres, covered multiple points in U.S. history,
presented young children as racialized protagonists, and were written for children in third and fourth grades. Students
were asked to sign up for the first and second choice books. They were placed in book clubs based on their choices
(see Rogers & Christian, 2007 for a detailed analysis of the children’s literature).
As teacher-researchers, we each read and discussed the books before class. During the book club discussions, we
rotated between the groups, listening and noting themes and issues that would make for provocative discussions when
the whole class came together. In this analysis, we focus on a discussion of the book Iggie’s House. We returned to
this book club for closer analysis because the participants held different interpretations of the racial literacy of the
protagonist. Winnie, the book’s protagonist, lamenting over the move of her friend Iggie, spies the new family moving
into Iggie’s old house. She notices immediately that the family has three children and that they are Black. In an effort
to be neighborly, Winnie extends her friendship to the Garber children. Their relationship is not without its problems,
however. Neighbors sign a petition to force the family to move out of fear of desegregation. When the petition does
not force the family to move, a sign is posted in the Garber’s front yard telling them to “GO BACK WHERE YOU
BELONG. WE DON’T WANT YOUR KIND AROUND HERE!!!!!”. This further exacerbates the tenuous relationship
between Winnie and the Garber children. Through letters written to the absent Iggie, we see Winnie’s White racial
development. At the end of the text Winnie recognizes and admits that she knows less about racial relations than she once
thought.
3.2. Participants in the book club
Faye, Todd, Chelsey, and Jenna were participants in the Iggie’s House group, the focus of our study. They each
brought a complex array of subject positions with them to class that provide a backdrop for understanding how
they approached the book club discussions. Looking across the categories of gender, race, geographical background,
degree status (e.g. graduate or undergraduate), dispositions toward racial literacy, and ways of approaching academic
writing and discussion, we can see that these four students came to the discussions of texts from multiple, intersecting
positions.
3.2.1. Faye
A graduate student in the class, Faye entered her graduate program after completing a bachelor’s degree in African-
American Studies and Educational Studies. Faye was the only African-American woman in the class. Faye grew up in
a large family. At the university, Faye “had to come to terms with the fact that I was a Black person, a female at that,
on a campus swarming with people who did not look like me. . . I also had to dissect the solid education that I thought
I had received for the white washed rhetoric that I was actually taught. . .”. During the course of this study, Faye partic-
ipated in a weekend anti-racism institute. She also taught at an elementary school where she established an academic
program for students who participated in the desegregation program. Faye readily engaged with issues of culturally
relevant and anti-racist literacy instruction in discussions, in journals and teaching. She demonstrated control over the
technical aspects of literacy instruction and she thought carefully about the cultural relevance of reading strategies and
prompts.
3.2.2. Todd
An undergraduate in the class, Todd double majored in Psychology and Elementary Education, although he dropped
his major in Elementary Education to finish school early and enter active military duty. Todd was one of two White
men in the class. Todd described growing up in a small “conservative, rural, Midwest” town and coming from a “very
conservative Lutheran family.” Todd admits having to unlearn stereotypes about all sorts of people once he arrived at
the university. Todd did not openly oppose engaging with issues of culturally relevant and anti-racist instruction, but
would often appear to not listen to his peers, sometimes leaving the room when those peers were discussing topics
related to race. Todd’s teaching suffered because of his lack of preparation for class—he often did not have lesson
logs completed and/or not completed the readings. We spent additional time working with Todd on aspects of literacy
teaching that were not yet under his control.
3.2.3. Chelsey
Chelsey, a European-American undergraduate student, majored in Elementary Education. Chelsey attended a racially
diverse high school and defines herself as an avid reader from a very young age. Chelsey explained her desire to become
a teacher in terms of her love for children. She easily built rapport with the elementary student she tutored. Chelsey
commented several times in class and in her journals that she did not think it was not developmentally appropriate to
engage young children in discussion around race, racism, and anti-racism. She made several postings on the online
discussion board that indicated she thought, from her experiences in high school, that racial issues were given too much
attention.
3.2.4. Jenna
Jenna was an undergraduate who double-majored in Education and Anthropology. Jenna attended public schools in
the metropolitan area where this study took place. In an autobiography, she described herself as “devoted to teaching
practices that promote justice and build community in her classroom.” Jenna had many connections with the local
context of teaching in this city. Each of her teaching lessons included specific reading and writing strategies within a
culturally responsive framework. During the course of the study, Jenna joined a teacher inquiry group outside of her
coursework. She was also active in various community activist groups.
3.3. Data collection
The data sources drawn on for our analysis include fieldnotes of seminar sessions, course materials, reflective
journals, and recordings (audio and video) of teacher education students’ oral and written conversations around the
book club books. Each book group met twice, over the course of two consecutive weeks, to discuss their book. We
video-recorded the two discussions of the Iggie’s House book group. We also video-recorded and took fieldnotes from
the two whole class discussions where the book groups came together and shared the insights that arose during their
book club discussions. We also video-recorded and took fieldnotes of three discussions that occurred as we read books
that focused on race and anti-racism aloud to the class. In addition, we collected written artifacts such as weekly journal
entries, reflective essays, and online discussion postings that related to the book club discussions.1
3.4. Analysis
Our analysis draws on the tools of critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1992; Gee, 2006) and multimodal dis-
course analysis (e.g. Norris, 2004). CDA in education research has been used to describe, interpret, and explain the
relationships between micro- and macro-processes within texts and discourses. CDA focuses on how texts are con-
stitutively constructed; how they enact social relationships and social identities (Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999;
Fairclough, 1992; Wodak & Meyers, 2001). Thus, people are always doing something with words. Drawing on the tex-
tual resources of systemic functional linguistics (Halliday, 1978), CDA attempts to trace the patterning of modes within
and across texts, paying particular attention to patterns of power (e.g. dominance/oppression or liberation/justice).
Multimodal discourse analysis (MDA) draws on semiotics and discourse theories and focuses on how people in
a community of practice make choices about how to use actions to position themselves and others (Norris, 2004).
Multimodal discourse analysis sees the use of any sort of mediational tool (verbal, textual, and gestural) to create
social practices as social action. MDA broadens the edges of discourse analysis to include gestures, objects and
other non-linguistic tools, attends to the distribution of meaning across mode, and how this patterning constitutes
social action. By attending to the patterns of modes that create a particular meaning—gestures, proxemics, head
movements and so on, the analyst can describe the relationship between the form and function of communicative
modes.
1 A detailed timeline of the data collection over the yearlong course is available for interested readers.
In our analysis, we describe, interpret and explain how meaning is distributed across modes such as language,
movement, gesture and the layout of the physical space, as well as the social identities as indicated by the language
and movement. This method also allows us to see how social action in the classroom (as a part of book clubs) is part
of larger societal narratives.
3.4.1. Procedures
We transcribed each of the videotapes that pertained to the book club structure: literature read aloud to the group
by course instructors, book club discussions among participants and whole class discussions. As we transcribed the
videotapes we attended to language and nonverbal cues such as posture, eye gaze, silences, movements, and proxemics.
We began all of the transcripts with the verbal, because that was the primary mode of communication in the research
design. Then, we added in italics the prominent nonverbal discourse while watching the videos in a video-software
program that allows for a frame-by-frame look at the video. The nonverbal description was transcribed second-by-
second. Next, we embedded still frame images into the transcripts at moments we saw as modally complex or telling in
terms of the nonverbal interaction. In several cases, we put multiple frames together to see a photo-story to see changes
in proxemics, posture, gesture, and other markers of interactional positioning across time.
We represented each transcript in a table organized by idea structure, participant roles, and associated multimodality
(see Table 1). Idea structure named the ideas presented or restated in that section of transcript. For participant roles,
we identified the number and length of turns taken by each participant in each idea construction as well as the position
they took up. We chose a still frame and represented the multimodal interaction by writing about the nonverbal modes
employed in the construction of the idea. Returning to our research questions and sections of our analysis that seemed
especially provocative (either there was conflict or surprise) we called on the theories and methods of CDA to more
fully understand the construction of racial literacy.
The CDA framework we use draws on the theories and methods of Gee (1999/2006), Fairclough (1992), Fairclough
(2004) and Norris (2004). We call on Gee’s (1999/2006) well-known distinction between “discourse” and “Discourse”
to signify the relationship between the “language bits” an individual uses—the grammatical, syntactical, semantic and
nonverbal choices made (“d” discourse) and the social practices they construct or evoke through their language use (“D”
Discourse). In our analysis, the relationship between the language bits (“d”) and the ways of valuing, believing, acting
that comprise social practices (“D”) are actualized through the elements of genre, discourse and style (Fairclough,
2004; Halliday, 1978). As we describe genre, discourse and style below we use the capital/smaller case orthographic
conventions made popular by Gee (1999/2006) to specify how linguistic realizations are connected to larger social
practices. See Appendix A for a chart of semiotic resources across participants in the book club.
We use Chouliaraki and Fairclough’s (1999) definition of genre as “the sort of language (and other semiosis) tied to a
particular social activity such as an interview” (pp. 63). Genres may be viewed as “ways of interacting” and include the
organizational threads of interacting (“g”) such as turn taking structures, cohesive devices, parallel structure, politeness
conventions, revoicing, narrative sequencing, etc. Analysis of the organizational threads of a particular genre allows
us to see the type of genre that is being constructed (“G”). For instance, an interview can be described as a genre but
depending on the linguistic realization of the interview “g” (e.g. turn-taking structure, politeness conventions, etc.) the
genre of the interview “G” can be described in different ways (e.g. formal and informal).
Each utterance both raises possibilities and precludes other possibilities that signify meta-narratives, or discourses.
Discourses are “ways of representing” ideas and include what Luke (2000) referred to as “systematic clusters of themes,
statements, ideas and ideologies” (p. 456). Discourses embody tensions and contradictions. Meta-narratives are iden-
tified through idea units “d” discourse. They are also identified through the “ways of interacting” that includes values,
emotions, beliefs, bodily positions—or “D” discourses. For instance, an interview about anti-racism may evoke various
themes about anti-racism (e.g. white privilege, affirmative action). “D”iscourses are materalized through circulating
statements and idea units—or “d”iscourses. As a result, meta-narratives about anti-racism may be discursively realized
in a wide range of ways, ways that the analyst sets out to describe.
Finally, communication always involves position taking, so we look at ways of being, or style. Styles are “ways of
being” and represent interpersonal choice (tenor in Halliday’s term, 1978). An analysis of style includes an analysis
of the linguistic realizations of style “s”—voice (active or passive), modality (tense and affinity), mood (questions,
statements, demands), transitivity (e.g. action, affective, ability, cognitive statements), pronoun use and verbal processes
(e.g. material, mental, relational and verbal) (Christie, 2002; Fairclough, 1992) as well as the social identities and
positions that are constructed through these realizations “S.” For instance, during an interview with a teacher about
Table 1
MDA transcripta
Time, turns Ideas Imageb Multimodality Verbal discourse

3:57 to 4:21, 12 turns The introduction to the idea that in (29) Jenna is leaning slightly (29) Faye: I think
R. Rogers, M. Mosley / Linguistics and Education 19 (2008) 107–131

the book “nothing happened.” No towards Faye that’s interesting
social action or justice occurred (30) Faye’s ankles are crossed (30) Um, I think I can
because the protagonist was and she looking down at her book see how
powerless (31) Faye looks at Jenna, softens (31) maybe you could
her tone feel that
(32) Faye’s head moves back and (32) but I didn’t feel
forth to compliment what she is that at all
saying
(33) Faye’s tone of voice raises (33) Jenna: what did
you feel like?
(34–36) Faye’s tone of voice (34) Faye: This little,
raises this book made me
upset
(35) I don’t like to
read books
(36) where nothing
happens
(37) Jenna’s mouth opens wide, (37) Jenna: ohhhhh
eyebrows raise, eyes get wide,
shifts gaze from the table to Faye
a Description: The table includes one idea segment from a 17-min book club conversation on the book Iggie’s House. Chelsey takes 47 turns, 10 which are characterized as overlapping speech
to move another’s talk along. She also makes two failed attempts to gain the floor. Faye takes 75 turns, 5 of which are overlapping and used to agree with another participant. Jenna takes 96 turns,
but 48 turns include overlapping speech only that moves the conversation along or shows agreement (mmm hmm, right, laughter).
b We recreated this image using a drawing in the style of Leander and Rowe (2006) to mask the identities of participants for the purpose of this article. However, we used actual video-stills in
our analysis. In this image, numbers correspond to multimodality in each turn, arrows denote directionality of body movements during a turn, and thin lines that become thicker denote the focus
of gaze.
115
anti-racism the teacher uses the linguistic resources of style “s” (e.g. modality, pronoun use) to position herself as a
certain type of teacher “S” (e.g. anti-racist teacher, colorblind teacher).
Meaning making is realized through verbal and nonverbal utterances (e.g. gesture or posture shift). Thus, we took
stock of the ways in which multimodal resources were distributed across genre, discourse and style. For instance,
gestures can hold an interaction together (genre), functioning as a cohesive device; while at the same time marking
emotion and a stance that is not present in words (style). What is relevant to the present analysis is the chaining
or patterning of modes and how/what chains of modes individuals draw on and how these are reshaped within the
moment-by-moment interactions of the group and how these are then changed and reworked for individuals.
As indicated in our descriptions above, the lower/upper case letters popularized by Gee (1999/2006) is a
useful convention to signify the relationships between linguistic elements and social practices within the CDA
framework—g/Genre, d/Discourse and s/Style. That is, the linguistic elements of “g” genre, “d” discourse, and
“s” style are part of a larger matrix that signals social practices and meta-narratives (“G,” “D,” “S”). Because
using g/G, d/D, and s/S throughout the paper is cumbersome, we refer to the relationship between language bits
and social practices which underlie each aspect of the framework using lower case letters (genre, discourse, and
style).
We charted the patterns of genre, discourse and style for each participant in the book club, looking for patterns in
participation across the modes (again, see Appendix A). At this level of analysis, for example, we noted that Faye
often used a “yes. . . but” construction, a politeness convention used to enter the conversation with to get the floor with
a counter-point (genre) coupled with the meta-narrative that anti-racism should be action based (discourse) and held
together by verbal and cognitive verbal processes, materialized through an active voice (style). While she did this, she
would often soften direct points about White people participating in racism by shifting eye contact across members of
her book group and by using a softened tone of voice.
We also made a chart of all of the semiotic resources that each individual within the group used. For example, for
each participant, we made a chart for “genre,” “discourse,” and “style” and then listed the range of variation within
each mode. This allowed us to trace patterns within and across participants, looking within and across the modes.
We could, for example, get a better understanding of the differences between Jenna and Todd’s use of genres or
styles. It was here that we noticed that while Jenna did not have many turns in the discussions, she did draw on many
different genres in the book clubs. This level of analysis also allowed us to see changes in how participants used
the modes across the discussions. After identifying clusters of genres, discourse and style we recontetxualized this
level of analysis within the broader data set and our understanding of each participant within the yearlong research
project.
4. Anti-racism: talk is action or action, not talk?
One of Faye’s major critiques about Iggie’s House (Blume, 1975) that emerged from the book club discussion was
that “nothing happened.” In the book, The Garbers, a Black family, buy a home in a “lovely” neighborhood in the
suburbs of New Jersey, only to meet Mrs. Landon, a White woman, who circulates a petition against the Garbers and
puts a “go away” sign in the Garber’s yard. In a journal on April 12, Faye wrote the following, “It seems to me that
nothing was solved in this book. It was just a story about a 12-year-old White girl and her 1–2-week encounter with
the new Negro neighbors, or colored people as they were referred to by the other White characters in the story, and
how their ‘coloredness’ affected the lovely neighborhood on Grove Street.”
Chelsey, a White woman in the group, challenges Faye’s perspective that “nothing happened” in the book, arguing that
a number of actions occurred. Chelsey uses the following evidence to construct her argument. She mentions Winnie’s
survey of the community’s attitudes towards the Garbers; Winnie’s parents’ discussion of racism; the Landons’ move
out of the community which demonstrated that they lost the battle with racism in the community; and the fact that
Blume wrote the book as communities were being desegregated following the civil rights movement which meant that
writing the book itself could be viewed as a form of social action. The discourse about anti-racism here, is that the
actions of anti-racism can occur through talking, thinking and relating to people in certain ways and learning—actions
that have traditionally considered to be in the cognitive rather than material domain. Faye, on the other hand, looks for
evidence of material changes to determine if anti-racism is present.
Faye, Jenna, and Chelsey discussed the question of whether anything happened in the book during their first book
club meeting. Todd was absent from class. Jenna begins the book club begins by making a personal connection to the
text and the main character, “I feel like I am [. . .] this little girl.” Then, Jenna offers an explanation for her affinity with
Winnie.2
(9) Well, (10) because I feel like, um, Jenna looks inside of the book and holds the book up to chest level.
(12) when she when she talks about like, like um, ok, (13) when she talks about things (14) like people aren’t
supporting her, She looks at Faye. (15) when she has these ideas (16) and they’re not the same as her parents, (17)
I feel like that situation (18) is really similar to me sometimes (19) if I try to talk to my parents Jenna’s hands
are open on the table in a metaphoric gesture, outstretched, book is in one hand, her gaze is on the table. (20)
or like friends, (21) like that aren’t in the education program (22) about different like social justice type things,
She shrugs shoulders, squints eyes slightly and nods head in a beat gesture back and forth to compliment her
message. (23) they don’t really understand it. (24) Especially, like I remember reading, (25) when Dr. Rogers
read it [a section of Iggie’s House aloud], Index finger points upward as if she has just had an idea. (26) I felt
like (27) ‘oh, I feel like we’re alike,’ Beat head nods, smile, book is standing up on the table, cradled between
her two hands. (28) you know, so Looks down at table, 7 second pause.
Jenna explains that she and the character in the book engage with, “social justice type things” and most people in
her life “don’t really understand it.” For Jenna, “social justice type things” are defined by verbal, mental and relational
verbs; for example, verbal (e.g. lines 11, 13, 19 “talks”), mental/cognitive (e.g. line 15 “ideas,” line 23 “understand,”
and line 24 “remember”) and relational (e.g. line 14 “supporting” and line 27 “feel”). Here, Jenna discusses anti-racism
as carried out through talk and feelings and occurring mainly in the psychological/individual realm. There is a notable
absence of material verbs in this excerpt of Jenna’s talk. Also important to note is that in her explanation, anti-racism
is an unmarked term. She refers to anti-racist actions as, “social justice type things” and uses distancing pronouns
such as “these ideas.” She takes a stance, identifying herself with the main character who, she believes, engages with
anti-racism.
Faye questions the limits of Jenna’s identification with Winnie. Faye looks down at the book intently and Jenna
leans forward toward Faye, gazing at Faye’s book.
(29) Faye: I think that’s interesting. (30) Faye looks down at her book. Um, I think I can see how (31) maybe
you could feel that, then looks at Jenna and softens her tone. (32) but I didn’t feel that at all Her head moves
back and forth to compliment what she is saying.
(33) Jenna: You didn’t? What did you feel from the book? Her gaze is low.
(34) I definitely didn’t feel like I was in the book.
(35) Jenna: What did you feel like?
The tone of voice raises.
(36) Faye: This little, this book made me upset The tone of her of voice raises. (37) I don’t like to read books
(36) where nothing happens.
(38) Jenna: ohhhhh Jenna’s mouth opens wide, eyebrows raise, eyes get wide, shifts gaze from the table to Faye.
(39) Faye: Well, ok.
(40) Jenna: No, I don’t care, I don’t care Her head moves back and forth to compliment what she is saying.
In this interaction, Faye uses a common interactional move for her which is the “I think that’s interesting. . . but”
construction. This move functions to keep the conversation moving forward, even when she does not agree with others
in the book club. Jenna insists that she wants to hear Faye’s perspective on the book, asking her twice “What did you
feel?” (lines 33 and 35). Faye shares her viewpoint “I don’t like to read books where nothing happens” (line 36). Jenna’s
2 Throughout the article, we have chosen to represent the transcripts, broken into what Gee (2006) refers to as “idealized lines” in a paragraph
format. Each idealized line includes the nonverbals that made up the interaction. We have represented the verbal in 12-point font and the nonverbal
in italics and in 10.5 font so the reader could distinguish between the verbal and nonverbals embedded within the transcripts. We transcribed the
verbal and nonverbal components of the discussion. As such, the transcript is a multilayered record of the discourse in the group. One can read the
verbal, the nonverbal or both modes together.
long, “ohhhhh” causes Faye to pause and slightly backtrack saying, “well, ok.” Jenna, in the next turn, assures Faye
that she wants to hear her critique by repeating the statement, “I don’t care” with complimentary head movements.
Faye continues with her critique focused on the lack of action in the book. At this moment, the participants seem to
agree to explore the group’s divergent viewpoints together.
After this set of interactions, the interactional pattern changes and Jenna, usually a verbally active participant in
class discussions, is less talkative in the remainder of the book club discussion. If we were to look only at the verbal
discourse, we might come to the conclusion that Jenna was disengaged with the discussion. However, her nonverbal
language shows that she is still engaged. For example, in this interaction, Jenna, who was seated slightly turned away
from Faye, pushes her chair back and re-crosses her legs so that her entire body has shifted more directly toward
Faye. This move is in the middle of Faye’s critique of her position. This is a change in affiliation at both the level
of talk and the positioning of the body signals openness to hearing Faye’s interpretation. Further, Jenna’s turn taking
structure reveals that she still has almost half of the turns in the discussion but half of these turns are primarily used
for co-constructing and agreement (e.g. the use of “mmm hmmm”).
Faye introduces a central critique of the book, what she see as a privileging effect, which operates when White
people reframe racism (and measures to redress racism) in a manner that privileges the feelings of White people at the
expense of the material realities of people of color. Faye’s point is that the African-American voices are deliberately
muted in order to facilitate the expression of Winnie’s issues and emotions. She states:
(72) Faye: Like you didn’t hear voices of um, the Garbers, really She looks straight ahead, then looks to Jenna.
(73) And that
(74) [Jenna: ohhh, mmm She puts her hand to her mouth, and rubs her face.]
(75) Faye: That made me upset (76) because it’s all about, (77) this whole issue (78) is centered around them,
Faye looks down and makes circles with her pen on her notebook. (79) but the focus of the book (80) is Winnie.
Faye makes a line with her pen and slightly drops her chin.
(81) Jenna: [mmm She drops her hand to table.]
(82) Faye: and she doesn’t do anything. (83) She’s just going through emotions Her hand opens hand upward.
(84) and so. . .
In the book, Winnie’s struggle to talk with the adults in her life about racism is exactly the point that Jenna identified
with. Faye does not recognize Winnie’s White racial identity development if it remains in the mental, cognitive and
emotional realms rather than move into the material realm of anti-racism. This is especially the case if it comes at
the cost of muting the African-American voices in the book. In this excerpt, Faye calls on a range of verbs to make
her point: mental/material (e.g. line 72 “hear”), affective/relational (e.g. line 75 “upset” and line 83 “going through
emotions”) and material (e.g. line 82 “do anything”). While Faye moves between verbal processes, her point about the
divide between talk and action is underlined by her repetition of this argument and the multiple genres (e.g. narrative,
comedy, etc.), providing an example of how “nothing happened” (line 72) to execute the point.
Next, Faye argues that because Winnie is a child she does not have much agency. She stated “. . . it didn’t matter
what she wanted to say, or what she wanted to happen, it didn’t happen.” In this frame, Jenna is looking intently at
Faye. Faye continued, “and like she couldn’t really say, you’re not going to tell your parents off.” In the book, Winnie’s
mother learns people are moving into the empty house in their neighborhood. She tells Winnie she will make the new
neighbors brownies. When she finds out the family is African-American, she “forgets” to bake the brownies. Faye
draws on this excerpt from the book and creates what Faye sees as an unrealistic scenario where Winnie directly
confronts her mother’s racism.
(61) Faye: You’re not going to say, (62) ‘Mom, I know you didn’t forget (63) to bake those brownies, Faye’s
head is tilted, her gaze is on Jenna, Jenna nods. (64) are you playin’? Faye’s hand opens slightly.
(65) Jenna: Yeah really. Jenna laughs. Yeah. Faye’s tone is sarcastic.
(66) Faye: ‘Are you racist?’ Faye’s hand opens upwards and she leans forward. (67) You’re not going to say (68)
anything like that. (69) It just seems like Faye leans back in her chair (70) she was learning a lot too, and she
makes a slight chin nod to Jenna. Jenna is gazing directly at Faye. (71) so I guess if I was like, 12, Faye looks
down at the table (72) I would be like, (73) ‘oh, this is great’ and her finger points towards table. (74) but, at
this age, (75) I’m just like, (76) nothing happened Faye opens her hand. (77) Like it just frustrates me.
In Faye’s fictional encounter, Winnie interrupts her mother’s passive racism with a direct confrontation, naming
racism, “I know you didn’t forget to bake those brownies, are you playin? . . . Are you racist?” At the word racist,
Faye leans forward, adding emphasis to her statement. Faye’s point here is that Blume has chosen a character, that by
virtue of being a child is lacking agency and therefore is not able to directly confront racism through her talk. In this
excerpt we also hear a shift in Faye’s understanding of the boundaries of anti-racism. That is, while she maintains that
nothing happened in the book, she does indicate that “she [Winnie] was learning a lot, too”—a statement that opens the
possibility that learning about racism and anti-racism might be considered actions. Similarly, later in the conversation
she states, “she’s like a growing activist but she can’t do anything right now.”
5. A multimodal critique of Iggie’s House
A week later, Chelsey, Faye, Jenna, and Todd return to their discussion of whether anything was solved in the book.
Their focus shifts from the characters’ actions to the responsibility of the author and designers of the book covers.
Faye argues that Blume presents superficial and stereotypical representations of the African-American people in the
book. Chelsey, on the other hand, thinks Blume had limitations as an author stating, “it was written by a White lady
in the 60’s. . . so even if she had tried to convey something, I feel like it wouldn’t have been very good.” Faye and
Jenna both agree that Blume has social responsibilities as a writer and that she should have done research to create
more descriptive African-American characters. Faye wishes Blume had written a different book—a book in which the
protagonist could be called on to actively take on racism and where material conditions would have changed. Jenna
offers an alternative explanation, drawing on the socio-historical time frame of the 1970s that “maybe she [Blume]
could not have written the ending she wanted. . . That would be like predicting the future, almost.”
As Jenna speaks, Faye’s gaze lingers for several seconds on the cover of Jenna’s book, sitting on the table, midway
between them. She changes the conversation by initiating a multimodal analysis of the cover of Iggie’s House.
(199) What I find interesting Faye is looking at Jenna’s book cover and begins to reach over to the book. (200)
is that the cover She picks up the book and holds the book up, still connected to the table, turns the book around
and looks at the cover over the book. At the same time, Chelsey picks up her book and begins to open the cover
of the book. (201) that they reproduced (202) in the 80’s or the 90’s. . . (203) has your Faye pauses, and her eye
focus stays on the book her voice softens. typical White girl She brings the book cover to face the group. Her
gaze stays steady on the cover of the book. (204) and your poster Black children She rotates the book and has
it in mid-air moving it closer to Jenna’s direction. Her gaze rises when she says, “your poster Black children,”
looking at Jenna first and then Todd with a furrowed brow. She places the book on the table, pushing it toward
Jenna. (205) and everybody is just really happy (206) and that is not She shakes her head back and forth “no”
and her shoulders shrugs in synch. (207) what happens in the story, though Her gaze is down at the book that is
sitting on the table. (208) Jenna: Right. (209) It seems like they could have (210) been really good friends (211)
but that picture Jenna holds book up and examines the cover of the book. (212) is not indicative (213) of what
was going on (214) in the story. There is a four second silence from the group. Jenna turns the book around and
is studying the back of the book.
Each member of the group has a different book cover. The book has been reprinted several times (1970, 1986, and
2001) and each new edition has a different book cover.
The book cover Faye analyzes features a photograph of the three children in the book, as opposed to the other two
that present child-like drawings. The children fill the entire cover, with Winnie, the young White protagonist, in the
center, gazing at the reader/viewer. She is leaning, with a pleasant familiarity, over the younger child. This photo evokes
the image of caring siblings. Behind her are Herbie and Glenn whose faces are cut-off from view. All of the children
are gazing at the reader/viewer and have smiles on their faces, suggesting an inter-racial friendship. Unlike the other
book covers, images that suggest troubled racial relationships are not represented.
Faye pauses, her eyes stay focused on the book cover and her tone softens. Perhaps she is aware of two White
women’s presence in the group and her own stereotypical comments as she says, “typical White girl.” Again, in the
last meeting of the book club, Jenna strongly identified with Winnie saying, “I almost feel like I am this little girl.”
Faye rotates the book so others in the group can see it and has it mid-air moving it closer to Jenna. Her gaze rises to
look first at Jenna and then at Todd and she says, “and your poster Black children.” In the picture, the children who are
Black frame the image of a girl who is White, and they are all smiling at the viewer. The ironic nature of the statement
is reinforced by Faye’s furrowed brow. She places the book back on the table and pushes it toward Jenna while she
shakes her head back and forth, gesturing “no,” her shoulders shrugging in synch with the movement of her head as she
says, “and everybody is just really happy and that is not what happens in the story, though.” Faye’s words and gestures
work together to illustrate her critical analysis of the disjuncture between the text and the illustration. The images
metaphorically represent her point: there is often a disjuncture between what White people say and what they do.
Chelsey discursively piggybacks on this multimodal analysis, stating, “I think this cover is interesting.” Her corre-
sponding actions of opening the cover of her book and turning the book around to show the members of her group the
illustration inside captures her colleagues’ attention. After a few moments, both Faye and Jenna lean in to examine
the picture more carefully, indicating their joint engagement with the book. While this version of the cover includes
words and images that suggest troubled racial relationships, the reader/viewer needs to open the bright red front cover
of the book to see these images. Thus, the reader is ‘protected’ from racial discourses on the outside of the book.
The illustration is composed through the medium of water colors/paint, giving the image a less “real” feeling than the
photograph. The cover has a narrative density to it—with the modes of space, color, proximity, artifacts all working
together to create the meaning of the illustration. The reader/viewer cannot see the details of the characters’ facial
expressions because of their position on the page.
Faye and Jenna lean across the table, toward Chelsey and the book cover being displayed. Chelsey provides a
description of her illustration and Faye asks her, “What do you think that says?” Faye’s invitation to Chelsey, along
with her initiation of a multimodal analysis of her cover, provides a space for Chelsey to demonstrate that she, too,
can interpret the positions and ideologies of the cover artists from a critical perspective. She accomplishes this critique
in the excerpt below through a series of modalities—her words, her tone of voice, and her gestures (both iconic and
metaphoric), all of which indicate her critique of the perspective presented in the book. Chelsey states
I feel like, (230) I mean, the Black kid Chelsey’s gesture in this still frame stays close to the illustration as she
talks about the Black kid in the illustration. Her gaze stays focused on the book in front of her. (231) was in the
black and white side, (232) well ok, (233) so Winnie the White girl Her left hand opens up and extends to her
left shoulder in a broad, wide stroke. (234) is in the colors (235) and everything is all colorful and pretty Her
hands are broad, open, and extended. (236) like in the book with just the White people (237) and it was all (238)
colorful and pretty (239) and then the Black people came along (240) and then it is like (241) black and white
Chelsey’s voice gets sharp, directed, her tone changes, and her hand makes up and down beat gestures. (242)
like it took out all of the prettiness (243) or at least that is what Landon (244) was trying to point out, (245) black
and white. (246) Black is bad, so.
Chesley’s analysis focuses on the disjuncture or alignment between the visually and linguistically rendered ideas
(those on the cover and those written in the book). Through a descriptive reading of the visual and linguistic ideas in
the book as well as her own gestures (which add emphasis to her point) she critiques the narrow representation of the
racialized identities offered in the book. For instance, when Chelsey states, “So, Winnie the White girl is in the colors
and everything is all colorful and pretty,” she points out the representation of whiteness in the watercolor picture on the
inside of this cover. In this image, Winnie’s bike is set against a colorful background, whereas the Black male character
is drawn in grayscale. It appears as if the colorful background is following Winnie. The side of the picture that is in
grayscale matches the sign that reads, “GO Back where You belong. . .”
In addition to pointing out the cover artist’s choices with color and positioning, Chelsey uses her words, tone of
voice and gestures to emphasize her critique of the representation. When she refers to whiteness, she make a metaphoric
gesture, trying to give an abstract idea a shape that is depicted as open and expansive, hand wide, open and extended
in front of her. When she describes the other side of the illustration, on the other hand, her tone of voice changes, as
do her gestures. “The Black people came along and then it is like black and white.” Here, her gestures stay close to the
picture and her hand is open but fingers are pressed tightly together. The sharpness in her voice emphasized through
beat gestures with her hand might be read as emphasizing her objection to the representation in the illustration. When
she talks about the pictures, Chelsey’s gaze shifts from Faye, to Jenna, to Todd and back to the book.
Chelsey’s on-the-spot thinking and gestures reveal the metaphors she uncovers in the cover design. Her metaphoric
gesture of whiteness corresponds with the discourse she sees in the cover illustration, that whiteness is an invisible
racialized identity—it just “is.” Blackness, on the other hand, is concrete, can be pointed to – is considered by the
cover artist to be “racialized” – and she denotes this discourse through a sharp tone and pointed hand gestures that
stay close to the book. Through her multimodal analysis, she evokes the racial imagination which conceives of race
through rigid “Black” and “White” binaries—re-inscribing the social values attached to color, namely that whiteness
equals colorful and pretty and “black is bad” (Bell, 2004; Morrison, 1992). Her critique functions to make the point
that the author/cover artist carried out linguistic and metonymic violence against the people of color in the book and
at the table (Morrison, 1992).
Faye picks up on this analysis, co-constructing a critique with Chelsey, “I would kind of agree with what you are
saying” and then adds an additional layer to this interpretation—one that focuses on the social relationships of race
and white privilege rather than race as a single characteristic. She states,
(244) Faye: But on the black and white side Faye’s right hand gestures to the illustration. Her hand opens and she
points to the other side of the illustration with an iconic gesture. Her gaze is on the illustration. (245) everything
is black and white in their lives (246) it’s all racial. She looks up at Chelsey and they make eye contact. Her hand
is flipped over, on the table, palm upward as she finishes her thought.
(247) Jenna: Uh-huh.
(248) Faye: She shakes her head slightly and her gaze is on the illustration. But, Winnie, she has (249) she
doesn’t have to deal with race Her hand opens in front of her and moves in front of her face in a metaphoric
gesture. (250) So she just sees all of the beautiful colors Her gesture is in its most extended stroke, completely
open and fingers extended in front of her. Her facial expression matches her gesture. (251) and she is nothing
ever bothers her.
(252) Todd: Good. Chelsey looks to Todd. She is nodding her head.
(253) Chelsey: Good point. Chelsey nods her head in beat gestures.
(254) Faye: She is living a carefree life Faye’s gaze is on the book. (255) and he has to Chelsey turns the book
around to show the camera, there is laughter from the group, while Faye is in mid-sentence. (256) She is living
a carefree life Faye’s gaze is on the book (257) and she is doing whatever she needs to do and remains on the
book, as she makes a pointing gesture with her hand. (258) but they have to deal with racism Her gaze remains
on the book, as she brings a cracker to her lips. (259) and everything in black and white. Jenna is in the frame
propping her head up on her wrist and leaning in.
Faye moves the discussion away from a discussion of the invisibility of whiteness/the racialization of people of color
to an interpretation that focuses on white privilege and people of color having to do the work of racism and anti-racism.
Todd and Chelsey both verbally and nonverbally signify they are in agreement with Faye’s interpretation, perhaps
indicating further co-construction of the idea of race, racism and anti-racism as socially and historically constructed.
Together, Chelsey and Faye demonstrate that racism can be perpetuated through a range of verbal, nonverbal and
visual micro-aggressions. There is a great amount of hopefulness in this set of interactions as they take turns reading
the spatial layout, the color scheme, the proximity and layering across the three book covers. The multiple modalities
and nonverbal moves they invoke allow the conversation to continue.
Faye continues in the discussion and in her written work to struggle with the work that the people of color do to
dismantle racism both in the children’s books and in their class discussions. However, perhaps because of interactions
with her classmates such as these, she became more open to the racial literacy work of the group. Faye wrote the
following in her journal in response to an article called “Gentle does of racism: Whiteness in children’s literature”
written by Fondrie (2001).
I understand that change is not going to happen unless White people work, too, but is it necessary for books
to exist where White people are positioned as the main character? Don’t these books silence the voices of the
oppressed? At first read, I felt the author’s sentiments were the polar opposites of my own. Fondrie (2001) states,
“I always place the burden of acting or speaking on the characters who represent other groups. They are the ones
who must act and speak and think appropriately in my estimation.” Then, I realized something interesting. . . I
have been doing the same thing! I criticize society for placing the burden of racism on people of color, yet I also
criticize books like Iggie’s House for attempting to shift some of the burden to White people and how they deal
with racism. I realize that I have issues that I need to sort out about how I feel about discussions and literature
centered on whiteness, white privilege and White allies before I make a conclusion about the validity of these
topics. I have to come to understanding on the significance of each of these topics in discussions on racial issues
and whether or not I feel that they are necessary and helpful or just another indirect tool of oppression.
In this journal, Faye evokes the materiality of anti-racism through her choice of the linguistic units “burden” and
“deal with.” In a reflexive move, she recognizes how her critique of the White characters in Iggie’s House minimized
the anti-racist efforts of other White authors and of her White colleagues who are trying to enter into the work of anti-
racism. Faye seems to be recognizing that, for White people, a stage in “dealing with racism” may be synonymous with
talking about racism and anti-racism. She is left wondering about the possibilities and the constraints of discussions
and literature in the struggle for anti-racism, a point we return to in the conclusion.
6. Racism in the present day
Often, students who are new to discussions of racism and anti-racism perpetuate the discourse that racism does not
exist today, instead is a thing of the past (Bell, 2004; Shapiro, 2004). The book that this group read, Iggie’s House,
was written in 1970, and reading a book written 25 years in the past may have perpetuated this discourse. During
the conversation, Jenna and Chelsey historicize the book, postulating that the author did the best she could at the
time. Todd and Faye, however, both bring racism to the present day in their conversation. Faye continues her earlier
critique, that the book did not have strong action or solve anything. However, she extends this critique by pointing
out how racism occurs through redlining practices and white flight. This theme became part of the second book club
discussion.
After the book club conducted their multimodal analysis of the two covers of Iggie’s House, Faye turns to Todd
who has been virtually silent through the discussion, for the second time trying to pull him in, as a White man, into
the discussion about racism and anti-racism and asks, “What is the drawing on your book, Todd?” Todd lifts the front
of his book and flips the book around so the group can see the cover designed in 1970. There is a big sign on the cover
of the book that reads “GO BACK TO WHERE YOU BELONG.” It is the same wording as the sign in the 2001 book.
The 1970 cover stands in sharp contrast to the 1983 cover, which highlights the author’s name over the title of the
book. The colors are more muted than the other two covers and the picture depicts Iggie’s house, which has become the
Garber house. The sign is in the foreground of this picture, whereas in the 2001 version the sign is placed in a way that
it is secondary to the image. There are no people present in the 1970 cover, and therefore the illustration foregrounds
the symbol of the sign and the racist act.
In a direct manner, Faye sets up a fictional encounter for Todd and draws on the racist sign in version of the book.
She asks, “What would you do if someone put a sign like that in your yard? You would never expect someone to do
something like that right?” Jenna and Todd both respond at the same time, “No!” Then, Faye presses and asks, “How
come? What if you moved into an all-Black neighborhood. Do you think someone would do that to you?”
Faye’s questions call on material verbs such as “moved” “do that to you” and “put a sign” as she locates racism in
the physical world. Todd responds with an argument using verbs that locate racism as a set of physical and material
processes. Todd quickly steers the conversation away from Faye’s question, which asks him to make a connection with
the book as a reader and argues “there are certain places in this country where some people just can’t live” (line 347):
(344) I think that it all goes back to Todd places his hand on his forehead, then extends it outwards, (345) then
places his hand on the cover of the book. His gaze is directly at Faye. Jenna’s gaze is down at the table. Faye
takes a drink. Chelsey is looking at Todd. I mean//Todd’s finger taps on the book. there are certain places (346)
in this country His gaze is on Faye. (347) where some people just can’t live Chelsey nods slightly. Jenna looks at
the table. (348) because of the racist issues (349) that still exist. Todd makes a beat gesture on the book. Jenna
nods slightly. (350) There is a town in Arkansas (351) where Black people are not allowed. He gazes at Faye.
(352) Faye: There’s a town (353) in almost every state (354) where Black people (355) are not allowed Faye
laughs slightly and overlaps with line 356.
(356) Todd: Black people. Black people. I know. Todd looks directly at Faye, arms crossed with a serious look
(357) If Black people go there The tempo of his talk increases. (358) they get killed.
(360) Faye: I believe you She speaks softly, with her hand on her face, and her gaze shifts downward, body leans
forward. Faye picks up a pencil and begins to write in her notebook.
Here, Todd is drawing on the physical, material reality of where people can live, explaining this reality as just
the way things are. He identifies as having insight about the effects of racism on people of color, co-constructing the
notion that racism exists in the present day. He also acknowledges the physical dimension of racism stating, “if Black
people go there, they get killed” (lines 357–358). Todd’s explanation calls on a discourse of racism as geographically
based coupled with a passive construction that fails to name White people as the actors in violence against people of
color. His statement also naturalizes the subjugated position of people of color and the existence of racism and white
privilege, perpetuating the idea that the privileged status of White people is deserved rather than granted by law and
tradition (Bell, 2004).
Faye’s body and gaze shift downward and close as Todd is talking—she almost immediately looks down at her
notebook and begins to write. Todd has his arms crossed in front of his chest and he continues to explain the thought
patterns and beliefs of racist people. “And that is an awful thing and there are places like that where some people just
can’t go. . . I can’t think of a place where I would go where I would either have my life threatened or I would get a
sign like this in my front yard.” Jenna’s discomfort can also be read as she brings her hand to her face in a nervous
reaction to Todd’s point. She creates a break in the uneasiness by offering possibilities of when Todd might have his life
threatened. She notes that he would be threatened if he “was disrupting power relationships or was overtly anti-racist
or anti-patriotic.” Jenna’s turn seems to offer Faye another way into the conversation. Looking up from her notebook,
Faye states,
(368) No, we were just saying that Her hand rests on her chin, her gaze is downward. (369) because you are a
White man (370) you are in a position (371) so that you can travel through Her hand makes a smooth movement.
(372) many different spaces (373) in this world Her gaze is towards Todd, and Todd looks downward. (374)
without feeling threatened at all hand makes beat gesture, gaze is intent (375) And this is a privilege, Her voice
raises slightly. (376) That’s part of white privilege.
Faye asks Todd to understand his privilege in light of the material and physical experiences of people of color. As
she speaks, her tone is softened and her arm is outstretched on the table. She evokes a discourse of white privilege and
directly confronts Todd. She calls on material and physical verbs (e.g. line 371 “travel” and line 374 “threatened”) to
point out dangers that are more than rhetorical. She repeats,“this is a privilege” in lines 375–376, perhaps emphasizing
for Todd that she is responding to a question he raised in an earlier class session (“what are all of the examples of
white privilege?”) (fieldnotes, 19 February). Faye never directly answered his question. Rather, she supports Todd’s
deepening understanding of white privilege by asking him a question about his experiences as a White man. Faye then
applies the construct of white privilege to his experience. In this move she has provided a support for Todd to come to
his own understanding of white privilege.
Although both Todd and Faye frequently use the term “racist”; Jenna uses the only reference to “anti-racist” in
either book club conversation. A few turns later, Todd provides an example of racism, drawing on a personal narrative,
which suggests he has experience with racism and White people who are unaware of their racism.
Todd: A lot of people (603) don’t even know (604) what they are.
(605) Faye: Exactly. (606) Because they haven’t been (607) exposed to anything.
(608) Todd: I have people in my family Todd sits back, makes a beat gesture on the table. (609) that they are not
racist. (610) They will tell everyone (611) they are not racist voice is softer. (612) I will talk (613) to some of
my cousin’s friends (614) who live in this little rural town (615) and they will say, (616) “no we’re not racist”
His head tilts slightly. (617) but then later on (617) they will say something (618) and they will not even realize
it His gaze shifts to the side.
Todd points out several examples of white privilege as he has observed them with his own family and friends. For
example, in lines 603–611, Todd explains using verbal and mental verb processes, “a lot of people don’t even know
they are” . . . “a lot of people will say they are not racist.” Looking across Todd’s talk, he seems more likely to locate
discourses about racism in the material, physical range (e.g. “places where people can’t live” line 347 and “they get
killed” line 358) and discourses of anti-racism in the verbal, mental range (e.g. “know what they are” “say they are
not racist” lines 603–611). As he talks, we can hear that he is doing work, too, as a White person, because associating
with anti-racism means disassociating with family and friends. Earlier, Todd naturalized and distanced himself from
the physical dimension of racism (lines 357–358), whereas here, he draws on a personal experience. This suggests
that Todd is trying out different entry points into a conversation around racism. We gain insight into the impacts of
racism on those who perpetuate it, similar to learning about Winnie’s struggle in the book. As Bell (2004) reminds us,
this could easily lead to a privileging effect. In the meantime, though, this serves as an entry point for Todd into the
discussion around the contemporary existence of racism.
7. Becoming racially literate: the intersection of the individual and the group
When we sat next to our students during this book club, we heard and saw aspects of racial literacy. We noticed
participation structures, discourses of racism and anti-racism and different positions taken. But it was not until we took
a closer look, using the tools of critical discourse analysis, that we really understood the complexity of the semiotic
tools, narratives and discursive histories that were used throughout the book club. We have argued that racial literacy is
evident in the participants’ ways of interacting, ways of representing and ways of being in the book club; each infused
with verbal and nonverbal semiotic resources that each participant brought to the table.
At the group level, we noticed an increase in modal density as the students worked through a difficult idea or tried
to understand a new position. The increased use of gestures or shift in posture signaled the participants’ need to call
on additional semiotic resources to make their point. The White students tended to foreground mental, verbal, and
relational verb processes when they talked about anti-racism. Faye argued for anti-racism to be grounded in action, not
talk but a closer examination of the verbal processes she used indicated that she, too, drew on discursive, relational and
mental verbs (and some material and physical verbs) when she discussed anti-racism. When the students talked about
racism, however, they used material and physical verbal processes, indicating a much clearer location of racism (rather
than anti-racism) as material and physical. This suggests the need for more exposure (for all students) to examples of
anti-racist actions.
We have intentionally brought the group’s construction of meaning to the surface throughout this article. At this
point, however, we shift our focus to the networks of genre, discourse and style for individuals within the group. Such
networks (and changes in the networks) are examples of what Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) call “resemiotization”
and are important because they represent learning. As we heard from the group conversations, Todd participated in
a group discussion around race, racism and anti-racism when prompted, but his contributions, at one point in time,
evoked a discourse of white privilege that naturalized explanations for why racism exists today. Further, he exhibited
a pattern of declarative statements (genre) coupled with the discourse of racism and passive syntactical construction
(style). For example, we heard Todd say, “there are just some places where people can’t live” (line 336). This statement
naturalizes racism and abdicates White people from responsibility versus saying “White people and racist institutional
practices make it impossible for Black people to live in some neighborhoods”—a statement that names responsibility.
Todd does evoke the discourse of racism as a contemporary set of practices throughout his interactions in the book
club. We found this promising because often, White people discuss racism as a problem of the past, as a result of the
civil rights movement and the end of de jure segregation (Bell, 2004). When he talks about racism in the present day, he
does so through personal narratives (genre). For example, starting in line 602, he used a personal narrative that evoked
two discourses—racism still exists and White people are not aware of their racism. We found this narrative about his
“cousin’s friends” to be promising because earlier in the semester he had asked Faye for an example of white privilege
whereas here, he generates an example of white privilege, an aspect of racism, by himself.
Throughout the book club discussions, Faye demonstrates a great amount of flexibility in the variety of genres she
called on to further her critique of the book. For example, she called on fictional encounters, narratives and multimodal
analyses, to name just a few. Faye argues for anti-racism as action not talk (discourse) but often used verbal, mental and
relationship verbs rather than action verbs to make her argument (style). One possible interpretation of this is that Faye
is actually more open to considering talk as action than she explicitly states. We noticed that Faye fluctuated between
using the present progressive construction “growing activist” and “she learned a lot” which suggests anti-racism is a
set of processes that is learned and involves a combination of talk and action to calling Winnie’s actions “a waste of
time” and arguing that “nothing happened.” We see evidence – both as she works through disagreements, co-constructs
a critique of the book with her White colleagues and in her journal – that for her, one aspect of racial literacy is
understanding the perspectives and actions of her White colleagues.
Jenna experiments with different ways of interacting (genres) throughout the discussions. She consistently draws on
conversation builders, agreement, cohesive markers, revoicing and repetitions to keep the conversation going. She also,
however, asks probing questions, takes the floors, draws on intertextual resources, offers challenges to her colleagues’
naturalized statements about race or racism, uses humor, asks rhetorical questions and so forth. At several points in
the discussion she challenged her White colleagues’ perspectives around race. She did not challenge Faye but rather,
listened to her perspective. We noticed shifts in her understanding of anti-racism being more than just talk but including
actions as well (discourse). As we pointed out in the group discussion section, she physically and discursively shifted
her identification from the book and Winnie to Faye and a broader understanding of the book (style). Her body language
and verbal comments suggest an openness and willingness to move deeper into her understanding of race, anti-racism
and racism. Her listening, rather than talking, may have allowed Chelsey more time to participate in the discussions
and a chance to understand her colleagues’ perspectives.
Chelsey sees multiple forms of action in the book and calls on an argument structure that is based in evidence from
the book to make her case (genre). Chelsey seems to understand anti-racism as more of an incremental process than
Faye (discourse). However, she also understands Faye’s critique of the book and co-constructs a multimodal critique
of the book covers with Faye. Through this set of interactions she demonstrates that the discourse of racism can be
perpetuated through a range of verbal and nonverbal resources. We noticed that in this book club conversation she
took a stance to defend the anti-racist actions of the White character in the book but did not challenge the naturalized
statements about racism or white privilege that Todd presented (style).
8. Conclusions
Racial literacy is achieved in moment-to-moment interactions, which, in turn, are shaped by the historical and
institutional frameworks participants bring with them into conversations. Our findings suggest that becoming racially
literate is an interactive process that includes both support and challenge. Indeed, the participants supported one
another in becoming racially literate, modeling discourses, racial vocabularies and conceptual models for further inter-
racial understandings. They also demonstrated how racial literacy includes disagreement, challenges and multiple
perspectives.
We saw how, in the book club conversation, Todd was supported to answer his question “What is white privilege?,”
When asked if there was any place where he, as a White man, could not travel, Todd admits that there are few. After
listening to his explanation Faye responds, “And this is a privilege. That’s part of white privilege.” Through gentle
nudges to extend Todd’s thinking around race, Faye supports Todd to generate, from his own experiences, an example
of white privilege. The co-constructed multimodal analysis of the book covers is another example of joint engagement
and support around racial literacy. In this event, the shared analytic space of the multiple cover designs allowed different
participants to coordinate their discourses and perspectives, deepening the discursive and multimodal resources at their
disposal. Faye changes the genre of the book club from talk to multimodal analysis and her White colleagues follow her
lead. Through probing questions (e.g. when Faye asks Chelsey about her book cover “What do you think that says?”),
co-constructing meanings (e.g. through verbal and nonverbal turns) they together improvise a layered analysis of the
book covers. Perhaps the movement from discussion to the multimodal analysis of images opened up a space for the
pre-service teachers to engage with race differently than they could with words alone.
The pre-service teachers’ existing understandings were also challenged. Each of the participants rethink their
currently held beliefs around race in the book club. The multiperspectival space of the book club offered a window to
see ideas and viewpoints different from their own which, in turn, shed relief on their own constructs around race. Recall,
for example, Jenna’s identification with Winnie but her desire to hear Faye’s perspective about Winnie—communicated
through her repeated question to Faye “what did you feel?” Faye’s understanding of Winnie was a perspective that
Jenna had not considered. Faye, too, openly acknowledges in her journal that she realized the racial literacy work that
White people perform, “I criticize society for placing the burden of racism on people of color, yet I also criticize books
like Iggie’s House for attempting to shift some of the burden to White people and how they deal with racism.” She
opens herself to the possibility of different types of anti-racist work. We see and hear how Todd works through his
recognition that his White friends have different understandings of racism and white privilege. Through the multimodal
analysis of the book covers, we see and hear how Chelsey, too, re-examines the author and cover designer’s linguistic
and visual metaphors and what these communicate about race.
The space of children’s literature within the book club allowed this inter-racial group of students to jointly engage
around the problematic of anti-racism. They conducted their own critical analysis of the characters’ words and
actions—scrutinizing the intentions and consequences. In doing so, they engage their racial imaginations about what
is and should be considered anti-racism. We would argue that the space of the children’s literature provided a support
for the students to engage with the motives, intentions, dispositions, words and actions of the characters. That is, as
they re-interpret Winnie, they also re-interpret themselves and their relation to each other in a way that they might not
be able to without the presence of fiction. Winnie’s fictional character allowed the pre-service teachers the space to
rehearse their critiques and praises, around anti-racism that they might not have the courage (yet) to do with people. This
rehearsal adds to each participants’ stock of discursive resources that they might call on in their next set of interactions.
Interestingly, they enact racial literacy as defined by critical race theorists (Guinier, 2004) and whiteness studies
(Twine, 2004). That is, the framework of race was used as a lens to explore social, historical and institutional prac-
tices (Bell, 1992, 2004; Guinier, 2004). Critical race theorists tend to emphasize the institutional processes over the
individual—focusing on the material outcomes of race as a social mechanism. Faye most consistently addressed a
racial framework from this standpoint—although the other participants did historicize the book and bring racism into
the current context. Racial literacy as it has been articulated in whiteness studies attends to the social and cultural
interactions between people. Jenna and Chelsey tended to address race from the standpoint of individuals’ interactions.
Perhaps Faye’s discomfort with naming talk as a form of social action stems from the lack of difference talk has
historically made around matters of racism and racial injustices. It might also stem from a desire to locate action in
economic and political structures that impact the daily realities of people of color. Part of racial literacy, then, for White
people, is understanding how the historical and material realities of racism cause people of color feel an urgency about
change that must move beyond the discursive realm. On the other hand, Jenna’s strong identification with the character
was based on her own growing activism and developing anti-racist identity. For Jenna, talking about matters of race
and racism with her friends and family is risky—she admits how difficult it is to get any uptake around racial matters
from the White people in her life. Part of racial literacy for people of color, might include recognition of the different
steps White people take as they learn to become an anti-racist. Both groups need multiple opportunities to dialogue on
race in both intra- and inter-racial groups and to learn more about historical and material conditions that make racism
and anti-racism possible.
Thus, our analysis leads us to a reconstructed framework for racial literacy—one that includes perspectives from
both critical race theory and whiteness studies. We return to our earlier discussion, drawing on Guinier (2004) and
Twine (2004), but add to their definitions the role of action. Racial literacy involves a set of tools (psychological,
conceptual, discursive, material) which individuals (both people of color and White people) use to describe, interpret,
explain and act on the constellation of practices (e.g. historical, economic, psychological, interactional) that comprise
racism and anti-racism. Actions include a broad array of elements—including discussing racial issues, reading and
writing about racial issues, bringing critical literacy to texts about racism, interrupting racism in talk and action, and
educating oneself about the economic realities of institutional racism. Beyond these practices that were part of the book
club format and other academic spaces, action through participation in organized events around anti-racism, events that
work the intersection between anti-racism and inequities in language education, immigration, school reform, human
rights, and environmental issues.
Earlier work with teachers around issues of race and culture has focused on the discursive construction of white
talk and strategies that teachers use to avoid conversations around race (e.g. Case and Hemmings, 2005; de Frietas,
2005; Willis, 2003). We would argue that these articles document such practices without a close examination of how
white talk is part of the patterns of practices of individuals who participate in such discussions. Further, the work
with teachers that examines racial understanding through narratives has often been less attentive to the ways that the
participants use such narratives as one of many multimodal resources. For example, how do patterns in the crossing and
re-crossing of legs, the proxemics of the group, and other nonverbal cues mark engagement, disengagement, or shifting
understandings? Our prolonged engagement as teacher-researchers and data collected across ethnographic contexts
along with our ongoing teaching and research suggests that we need a more complicated way of understanding the
work that a group of inter-racial people do together as a group, including the multimodal work.
Our findings indicate that racial literacy includes not only what is signified through verbal and nonverbal modes
but also how it is signified. Much of racial literacy occurs under the surface of words, which is why we turned
to a framework that drew from multimodal discourse analysis (Norris, 2004) and critical discourse analysis (Fair-
clough, 2004; Gee, 1999/2006). Ideologies around race are communicated through what is said (and not said) as
well as through body language, gestures, eye gaze, and use of space. These semiotic resources can function on
their own—without the presence of language. Often, though, they are combined with verbal practices and work
together to compliment or emphasize a message or, conversely, to contradict a message. To actualize the relationships
between the language bits (structure and semantics of language) with larger social practices, we created a hybrid
methodological convention that relies on the orthographic conventions of (small case letter/upper case letter) pop-
ularized by Gee (1999/2006) and the discursive framework of genre, discourse and style ala Halliday (1978) and
Fairclough (2004). That is, each genre, discourse and style that constitutes an interaction is structured by the lan-
guage bits and by larger social practices. This discursive structuring is held together by a hybrid semiotic thread
which includes multimodalities. We have conceptualized multimodal resources as distributed across genre, discourse
and style. Looking at the interactions through the lens of multimodality offered a vantage point to observe meaning
making practices that might have otherwise gone unnoticed. For instance, noticing the different types of gestures
(e.g. pointed/sharp and wide/expansive) Chelsey used in her analysis of the racial metaphors depicted on the book
cover helped us to understand her critique of the artwork. Through our multimodal analysis we also noticed how Faye
responded, nonverbally, to Todd’s comment about hate-crimes against African-Americans. She immediately looked
down at her notebook and began to write. Reading this discomfort, signaled through body language, Jenna directly
questions Todd to keep the conversation moving. Most critical discourse analyses have not closely attended to mul-
tiple modalities, but our analytic procedures of transcribing talk and action allowed us to see patterns in how these
multimodal resources were structured and used over time by participants. Methods for tracing multimodal engage-
ment as ways of positioning oneself in relation to Discourses about race and racism is an area that warrants ongoing
theorization.
8.1. Pedagogical insights
Every interaction holds the potential for the participants to create new meanings—through the discursive networking
of genres, discourses and styles. Many analyses of classroom talk around race have not closely attended to the discursive
threads that individuals bring with them into conversations and how slight shifts in discourse patterns might signal a
shift in learning. Such shifts, we would argue, hold implications for action—mental, discursive, and material action.
As we heard in the discussion, as the discursive threads in the conversation shift and change, so, too do the mental
formations which may lead to transformed ways of acting and being in the social world.
As others researchers have convincingly argued, book clubs within teacher education classrooms can provide a
productive space for rehearsing roles associated with multicultural society (e.g. Florio-Ruane, 2001; Lewis et al.,
2001). The more experiences teachers (pre-service and in-service) have with racial literacy, the more likely they are
to set up the conditions in their own classrooms for students to engage with racial literacy. This in turn might lead to
them seeking out rather than suppressing opportunities to become racially literate.
We need to recognize that to a certain extent, the students in this study were inclined to personal and intellectual
growth because of their status as students in a teacher education program. However, we also need to recognize the
additional conditions that make such racial literacy work possible. We designed the course to be an ongoing curricular
conversation around justice and equity. Through a combination of seminar discussions, readings, online discussions,
journal reflections, teaching experiences, debriefing with colleagues about teaching and book club discussions—the
pre-service teachers in this study had a variety of opportunities to not only learn about but also to learn how to interact
with others around racial literacy. Over the course of a year they had built up relationships and trust necessary to
overcome ruptures in discussions and different points of view. We acknowledge that the community that was built
might not be possible with the time constraints of a traditional semester course.
We believe there are great possibilities for exploring with teachers the micro-interactions of discussions as we
have presented here. Pedagogically it also seems important to build in opportunities for the participants to reflect on
the participant structures, topics, and positions that kept the conversation moving along. Similarly, reflecting on the
moments where there was a fissure in the dialogue might also prove instructive. Teacher educators and teachers might
apply critical literacy and critical discourse analysis practices using video-recordings and transcripts of discussions
about literature and anti-racism as texts. Our awareness of the patterns with which pre-service teachers engage with
racial literacy comes from such analysis of text as evidence of learning, and we are convinced that conversations like
the ones had around the literature in our teacher education class helps to build a discursive history, which, in turn,
supports the development of racial literacy.
128
Appendix A. Critical discourse analysis
Coding chart of semiotic resources across participants in the book clubs*
Multimodal resources (distributed across genre, Genres (“ways of interacting” verbal resources) Discourses (“ways of representing” verbal resources) Styles (“ways of being” verbal resources)
discourse, and style)
Pointing with head, gaze, body position, or hand Parallel structure (e.g. words or words and body Racism Verbs (habitual, present progressive, past)
language)
Motioning to an object (e.g. pointing) Cohesive markers (use of the book as an artifact to Racism is manifested through racist individuals Relational
hold the discussion together)
Using artifacts or bodies to get or keep the floor or as a Embedded speech/re-voicing Racism is manifested through institutional structures and Cognitive/mental (positive/negative)
thinking tool personal beliefs and actions (Bell, 2004; Guinier, 2004)
Eye contact/gaze (e.g. direct, indirect and with whom) Critique Racism learned/disrupted through talk Material
sequentially structured Piggybacking or chaining Racism learned/disrupted through actions Affective (positive/negative)

Humor/laughter Racism learned/disrupted from other people Ability (positive/negative)
Use of proximity (e.g. closing and opening space Narratives Racism is conscious/unconscious Active construction/passive construction
between participants)
Posture (e.g. open, closed, extended arms, folded arms) Hypothetical situations Racism exists in the present/past Modality (low or high commitment to the idea)
Use of print or images Reference and predication Racism based on geographic locale Affinity statements
Facial expressions Politeness conventions Racism includes brutality and violence Affinity with whiteness
Head movements (e.g. in synch with words, as others Ironic tone Racism includes micro-aggressions Identifying/not identifying with whiteness
are talking)
Simple head movement False starts and stops Explanations for racism Identifying/not identifying with blackness
Complex head movement Hedging Exclusion based on difference Distancing language
Use of air quotes Analogy Naming racism or racist actions (e.g. “Are you racist?” or Descriptive language
“Gone with the wind is so racist.”)
Gestures (e.g. to keep the floor, to expand on what is Metaphors (e.g. verbal, gestural or iconic) Race and racial identity Pronouns (first, third, reflexive)
being said)
Beat gestures Mini-allegories Stereotypical/authentic representations High commitment language
Iconic gestures Counter-theory/argument Common human origins Personification
Metaphoric gestures Cause–effect construction Black racial identity (Tatum, 2003) Existence of absence of talk about race
Deictic gestures Co-constructing White racial identity (McIntyre, 1997) Statements (e.g. declarative, interrogative, exclamatory,
rhetorical)
Reaching for an artifact (e.g. book, notebook, pencil, Agreement/disagreement Racial identities are static/develop and change Nominalization (e.g. “slaves” vs. African-American people
bag of food on table) who were enslaved)
Overlapping speech Individual or group membership Absence of naming people of color
Changing the topic Author/characters have racial identity Assigning racial categories to author/characters
Type of question (e.g. open ended/closed ended) Noticing the impact of the author’s racial identity in the Naming self as reader/teacher as racialized (e.g. “As a White
development of characters person, I. . .”
Paying attention Noticing Black characters are not developed in the book Re-centering discourse on White people
Conversation builders (“you know”) Whiteness Making excuses for White people
Intertextuality (reference to journals, books, black White privilege is unconscious and insidious Generalizing from the individual to the group
comics)
Writing in notebook as people are talking White allies are important when working against racism
(Stokes-Brown, 2002)
Direct/indirect discourse White authors have responsibilities when writing about race
Repetition Privileging effect (Bell, 2004)
Rush to complexity (e.g. comparing homosexuality and
racism) (McIntyre, 1997)
Colorblindness/disruption of colorblindness
(Ladson-Billings, 2004)
Noting how talk about racism is re-centered on Whites
Noting excuses made for White people (McIntyre, 1997)
Discourses of childhood
Discourse of development
Discourse of conservatism
Working towards anti-racism
Anti-racism
Anti-racism is learned from models and other allies
(Stokes-Brown, 2002)
Anti-racism equals tolerance or acceptance
Anti-racism equals actions, not talk
Anti-racism includes talk
Anti-racism does not just happen
Anti-racism is a continuum
Anti-racism is dangerous
Anti-racism learned from other people
Anti-racism disrupted with other people

Social relationships and White allies
Social justice
Intersectionality (e.g. overlap of racism and classism)
* The semiotic resources displayed in this chart represent the range of resources that we coded for the participants in this book club. The chart is not meant to demonstrate the patterns across the resources. Thus, any resource identified in the vertical columns
(e.g. “multimodal resources,” “genre,” “discourse,” and “style”) might be patterned together with a resource in another column. The important point to remember is that genres, discourses and styles are evoked simultaneously in our verbal and non-verbal
language.
129
References
Bell, D. (1992). The space traders. In Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism. New York: Basic Books.
Bell, D. (2004). Silent covenants: Brown v Board of education and the unfulfilled hopes for racial reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
Blume, J. (1975/1986/2001). Iggie’s House. NY: Yearling Press.
Callinicos, A. (1993). Race and class. London: Bookmarks Press.
Case, K. A., & Hemmings, A. (2005). Distancing strategies: White women preservice teachers and antiracist curriculum. Urban Education, 40(6),
606–626.
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. NY: Continuum Press.
Chubbuck, S. (2004). Whiteness enacted, whiteness disrupted: The complexity of personal congruence. American Educational Research Journal,
41(2), 301–333.
Clements, A. (2002). The Jacket. NY: Simon & Schuster.
Davies, B. (1990). Agency as a form of discursive practice: A classroom scene observed. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(3),
341–361.
de Frietas, E. (2005). Pre-service teachers and the re-inscription of whiteness: Disrupting dominant cultural codes through textual analysis. Teaching
Education, 16(2), 151–164.
duBois. (1903). The souls of Black folk. New York: Signet Classic.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Intertextuality in critical discourse analysis. Linguistics and Education, 4(3–4), 269–293.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage.
Fairclough, N. (2004). Semiotic aspects of social transformation and learning. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in
education (pp. 225–235). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Florio-Ruane, S. (2001). Teacher education and the cultural imagination: Autobiography, conversation, and narrative. Malwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Florio-Ruane, S., Raphael, T. E., Glazier, J., McVee, M., & Wallace, S. (1997). Discovering culture in discussion of autobiographical literature:
Transforming the education of literacy teachers. In C. K. Kinser, K. A. Hinchman, & D. L. Leu (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy theory and pratice:
Forty-sixth yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 452–464).
Fondrie, S. (2001). Gentle doses of racism: Whiteness in children’s literature. Journal of Children’s Literature, 27(3), 9–13.
Fuqua, J. (2002). Darby. MA: Candlewick Press.
Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Guinier, L. (2004). From racial liberalism to racial literacy: Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-divergence dilemma. Journal of American
History, 91(1), 92–118.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 182–202).
London: Routledge.
Kress, G. R. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. (interview, 2003). Perspectives on discourse analysis. Interviewed at the critical discourse analysis conference in Bloomington, Indiana.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1999). Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical race theory perspective. Review of Research in Education,
24, 211–247.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2004). Landing on the wrong note: The price we paid for Brown. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 3–13.
Leander, K., & Rowe, D. (2006). Mapping literacy spaces in motion: A rhizomatic analysis of a classroom literacy performance. Reading Research
Quarterly, 41(4), 428–460.
Levine-Rasky, C. (1998). Preservice teacher education and the negotiation of social difference. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 19(1),
89–112.
Lewis, C., Ketter, J., & Fabos, B. (2001). Reading race in a rural context. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(3), 317–350.
Lipsitz, G. (1998). The possessive investment in whiteness: How White people profit from identity politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press.
Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43, 448–461.
Marx, S., & Pennington, J. (2003). Pedagogies of critical race theory: Experimentations with White preservice teachers. Qualitative Studies in
Education, 16(1), 91–110.
Matsuda, M., Lawrence, D., Delgado, R., & Crenshaw, K. (1993). Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech and the first amendment.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
McCarthy, C. (2003). Contradictions of power and identity: Whiteness studies and the call of teacher education. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 16(1), 127–133.
McIntyre, A. (1997). Making meaning of whiteness: Exploring racial identity with White teachers. Albany: State University of New York Press.
McVee, M. B. (2004). Narrative and the exploration of culture in teachers’ discussions of literacy, identity, self, and other. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 20, 881–899.
McVee, M. B. (2005). Revisiting the black Jesus: Re-emplotting a narrative through multiple retellings. Narrative Inquiry, 15(1), 161–195.
Morrison, T. (1992). Playing in the dark: Whiteness and the literary imagination. New York: Vintage Books.
Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. New York: Routledge.
Norris, S., & Jones, R. (Eds.). (2005). Discourse in action: Introducing mediated discourse analysis. London: Routledge.
Perry, T., Steele, C., & Hilliard, A. G. (2003). Young, gifted, and Black: Promoting high achievement among African-American students. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Raphael, T. E., Florio-Ruane, S., & George, M. (2001). Book club plus: A conceptual framework to organize literacy instruction. Language Arts,
79(2), 159–168.
Rogers, R., & Christian, J. (2007). “What could I say?”: A critical discourse analysis of the construction of race in children’s literature. Race,
Ethnicity and Education, 10(1), 21–46.
Schick, C. (2000). “By virtue of being White”: Resistance in anti-racist pedagogy. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 3(1), 83–102.
Scollon, R. (1998). Mediated discourse as social interaction: A study of news discourse. London; New York: Longman.
Seidl, B. (2007). Working with communities to explore and personalize culturally relevant pedagogies: “Push, double images, and raced talk”.
Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2), 168–183.
Shapiro, T. (2004). The hidden costs of being African-American: How wealth perpetuates inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher
Education, 52(2), 94–106.
Smitherman, G., & van Dijk, T. (1988). Discourse and discrimination. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Solorzano, D. G., Cela, M., & Yosso, T. J. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of
African-American college students. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(1), 60–73.
Spinelli, J. (1999). Maniac Magee. NY: Little, Brown and co.
Stokes-Brown, C. (2002). Refusing racism: White allies and the struggle for civil rights. New York: Teachers College Press.
Tatum, B. (2003). “Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” A psychologist explains the development of racial identity. New
York: Basic Books.
Trainor, J. S. (2005). “My ancestor didn’t own slaves”: Understanding white talk about race. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(2), 140–167.
Twine, F. W. (2004). A white side of black Britain: The concept of racial literacy. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27(6), 878–907.
Twine, F. W. (2008). The future of whiteness: A map of the “third wave”. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31(4), 4–24.
van Dijk, T. (1984). Prejudice in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
van Dijk, T. (1987). Communicating racism. Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. Newbury Park: Sage.
van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283.
Willis, A. I. (2003). Parallax: Addressing race in preservice literacy education. In S. Greene & D. Abt-Perkins (Eds.), Making race visible (pp.
51–69). New York: Teachers College Press.
Wodak, R., & Meyers, M. (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.
Wortham, S. (2005). Learning identity: The joint emergence of social identification and academic learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rogers 08

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Rogers 08

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

Linguistics and Education 19 (2008) 107–131

A critical discourse analysis of racial

Keywords: Critical discourse analysis; Racial literacy; Book club conversations

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 314 516 5797.

2. Related literature and theoretical frameworks

2.1. Racial literacy

2.2. Discourse in/as social action

3. Research design and methods

3.2. Participants in the book club

3.3. Data collection

Time, turns Ideas Imageb Multimodality Verbal discourse

R. Rogers, M. Mosley / Linguistics and Education 19 (2008) 107–131

4. Anti-racism: talk is action or action, not talk?

5. A multimodal critique of Iggie’s House

6. Racism in the present day

8.1. Pedagogical insights

Coding chart of semiotic resources across participants in the book clubs*

R. Rogers, M. Mosley / Linguistics and Education 19 (2008) 107–131

R. Rogers, M. Mosley / Linguistics and Education 19 (2008) 107–131

Вам также может понравиться