Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Queer Ruptures of Normative Literacy Practices
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Queer Ruptures of Normative Literacy Practices
Do you wish to request the book?
Queer Ruptures of Normative Literacy Practices
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Queer Ruptures of Normative Literacy Practices
2019
Overview
This project focuses on the co-teaching and co-researching of a high school LGBTQ-themed literature course with particular attention to the reading and discussion of a queer-themed young adult novel, Brezenoff’s Brooklyn, Burning. In blending teacher inquiry and ethnographic methodologies, we found that students and teachers encountered ruptures to normative literacy practices of seeing, understanding, and connecting. When the class collectively treated these disruptions as excesses and problems, they disengaged with these ruptures such that dialogue was destabilized and sporadic. Without sustained dialogue, the class reproduced dominant literacy practices of seeing, understanding, and connecting, which in turn contributed to reifying normativities around sexuality, gender, race, and epistemologies. In contrast, when students and teachers stayed with disruptions and continued to dialogue about them across time, they took them up as opportunities for learning. Collectively they co-constructed alternative enactments of literacy practices, centered around visualizing and hypothesizing, which in turn facilitated empathizing. Through these alternatives, they contested normativities around sexuality, gender, addiction, and epistemologies, although not race and whiteness. Ultimately, we argue that with ruptures as obstacles, readers may or may not be able to see, understand, or connect with characters; but with ruptures as opportunities, readers can visualize, hypothesize about, and more deeply empathize with characters and their circumstances. Therefore, reading with ruptures is a risk worth taking.
