Researchers dissatisfied with the a

Researchers dissatisfied with the assumptions outlined above, and with the autonomous model of
literacy, have come to view literacy practices as instead inextricably linked to cultural and power structures in society. Avoiding the reification of the autonomous model, they study these social practices rather than literacy in itself for their relationship to other aspects of social life. Scribner and Cole (1981), Finnegan (1988), and Lave (1988) argue, on the basis of detailed ethnographic and experimental research in different cultural contexts, that literacy does not develop specific powers of decontextualized thinking. Finnegan (1988), for example, in her study of the Limba in Sierra Leone, found that they used oral practices in complex, reflective ways requiring cognitive skills which were thought to be developed only by so-called literate communities. The contextual approach to literacy has been variously characterized by recent researchers. Whereas Baker (1994) refers to it as “cultural,” Finnegan as “ethnographic,” and Hill and Parry, (1994) as “pragmatic,” Street (1984) has developed an “ideological” model, because it signals explicitly that literacy practices are aspects not only of “culture”
but also of power structures. The very emphasis on the “neutrality” and “autonomy” of literacy by writers such as Goody, Olson, and Ong is itself, he claims, “ideological” in the sense of disguising this power dimension (Street, 1993). The term “ideological” is not being used here in its old-fashioned Marxist (and current anti-Marxist) sense of “false consciousness” and simple-minded dogma, but rather in the sense employed within contemporary anthropology, sociolinguistics, and cultural studies, where ideology is the site of tension between authority and power on the one hand and resistance and creativity on the other (Bourdieu, 1977; Mace, 1979; Centre for Contemporary Cultural

Results (Malay) 2:

Penyelidik tidak berpuas hati dengan andaian yang digariskan di atas, dan dengan model autonomi
celik, telah datang untuk melihat amalan literasi sebaliknya berkait rapat dengan struktur budaya dan kuasa dalam masyarakat. Mengelakkan reification model yang autonomi, mereka mempelajari amalan-amalan sosial berbanding celik itu sendiri untuk hubungan mereka kepada aspek-aspek kehidupan sosial. Scribner dan Cole (1981), Finnegan (1988), dan Lave (1988) berhujah, berdasarkan terperinci penyelidikan etnografi dan eksperimen dalam konteks budaya yang berbeza, literasi yang tidak membangunkan kuasa khusus pemikiran decontextualized. Finnegan (1988), sebagai contoh, dalam kajian beliau daripada Limba di Sierra Leone, mendapati bahawa mereka menggunakan amalan lisan di kompleks, cara reflektif memerlukan kemahiran kognitif yang telah difikirkan untuk dibangunkan hanya dengan apa yang dikenali sebagai masyarakat celik huruf. Pendekatan kontekstual dengan literasi telah pun banyak ciri-ciri penyelidik baru-baru ini. Manakala Baker (1994) merujuk kepadanya sebagai "budaya," Finnegan sebagai "etnografi," dan Hill dan Parry, (1994) sebagai "pragmatik," Street (1984) telah membangunkan sebuah "ideologi" model, kerana ia memberi isyarat jelas literasi yang amalan aspek-aspek bukan sahaja "budaya"
tetapi juga struktur kuasa. Penekanan sangat pada "neutral" dan "autonomi" celik oleh penulis seperti Goody, Olson, dan Ong itu sendiri, beliau mendakwa, "ideologi" dalam erti kata yang menyamar ini dimensi kuasa (Street, 1993). Istilah "ideologi" tidak digunakan di sini di Marxsis yang lama (dan semasa anti-Marxsis) rasa "kesedaran palsu" dan mudah berfikiran dogma, tetapi dalam erti kata yang digunakan dalam antropologi, sosiolinguistik, dan kajian budaya kontemporari , di mana ideologi ialah tapak di mana ketegangan antara kuasa dan kuasa dalam satu tangan dan rintangan dan kreativiti di pihak yang lain (Bourdieu, 1977; Mace, 1979; Pusat Kebudayaan Kontemporari