Re-positioning Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory of Reading: Culturally Oppressive
Implications for Teaching, A Native Studies Perspective-Inafa’maolek Theory of Reading
“Culture becomes a dead language when it is taken for granted. Unless we are intentionally taking a critical stand, when we talk and act we are unknowingly reproducing discourses of oppression; and it’s the taken-forgrantedness of culture that makes it appear naturally real.” (Hall.S, 1982)
The implications of Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory of Reading for teaching reading to
a culturally and linguistically diverse student population finds a deeper meaning from a socio-historical context in the following essay. Allowing the meaning of representation to slip by the critical mind would only perpetuate the cultural oppression inherent in such a colonial concept of “transaction”. Drawing on cultural studies of Stuart Hall, this essay begins to unmask the ideology behind hegemony, discourse, and the re-positioning of meaning; setting course towards an “Inafa’maolek Theory of Reading” for Indigenous Students of the Pacific.
According to guampedia.com: “The phrase inafa’ maolek describes the Chamorro
concept of restoring harmony or order. The literal translation is ‘to make’ (inafa’) ‘good’
(maolek). Here, there is the assumption that there was once a state or condition that was
somehow altered, perhaps by an act of commission or omission, that must be restored to its
original state or condition.” As a critical student of Indigenous communication patterns of
Pacific Islanders, finding meaning behind the labels of what constitutes knowledge remains a
fundamental pursuit of media studies. As a master educator in graduate school, many outsider
perspectives of pedagogy form the higher education curriculum encoded to us students for use in
the classroom. Such an institution seems to continually perpetuate, without critically decoding
the meaning of such representations of, said theories to our Indigenous community, in their
appropriate socio-historical context. Probst speaks of the importance of context as well.
"...to see the reading act as an event involving a particular individual and a particular text,
happening at a particular time, under particular circumstances, in a particular social and cultural setting, and as part of the ongoing life of the individual and the group" (Rosenblatt, 1985).
From an Indignenous Pacific Islander perspective, the context referred to by Probst
and Rosenblatt, clearly requires an examination of the socio-historical environment of which
we apply such teaching pedagogy in the classroom. In order to even begin to understand the
implications of such theory. We begin with the idea of “transaction”. In Fundamentals of
Human Communication, Devito suggests in the chapter on Interpersonal Relationships: Stages
& Theories; the nature of communication as a transactional process, similar to that of the Social
Exchange Theory. Here the European-American ideology of capital economics drives the profit
and loss determination of value in relations. We give and take from each other as a human
process; and tend to value the most, these relations where the benefit of the dynamic outweighs
the cost. Juxtapose this outsider concept to our own Indigenous values inherent amongst Pacific
Islander society throughout Oceania; and we find a strong distinction to how Natives value what
we value. Dr. Katherine Aguon describes the values of Inafa’maolek as follows:
(1) Respetu – the provision of respect afforded to our elderly and others significant individuals within the family and community.
(2) Manginge – an expression of respect given to elders and persons of authority; likened to a kiss, this expression of reverence is displayed by the motion of a slight touch of the nose to be back part of a person’s right hand.
(3) Mamahlao – to be shamefaced, embarrassed or ashamed.
(4) Chenchule – present (money) donation, thing that is given away, gift not specifically associated with any particular event.
(5) Che’lu – Relationships with siblings.
(6) Påtgon – Children are valued and raising them is everyone’s responsibility.
Determining the implications of such an indigenous reading theory draws on counterhegemonic
narratives of pedagogy. Giving space for the Indigenous reader to create meaning
for self. The misrepresentation of Rosenblatt’s “natural” approach to the uniqueness of the
individual reader sets up culturally oppressive discourse as if we (Indigenous Educators) lack the
knowledge to recognize the meaning of “transactional” over “colonial”, or even “imperial”. Each
synonymous with outsider cultural perspective on culturally and linguistically diverse students,
in the appropriate socio-historical context that is. The same context which influences the
meaning each individual Indigenous student makes for themselves. After all, it’s been an entire
generation of teachers, growing up as an Indigenous Pacific Islander & Latino in U.S. Military/
Department of Defense Schools; which not too long ago, told us we we were wrong to have
our own interpretations. I found it difficult to understand, why the European-American students
received praise for their perspective, while as a minority, I was faulted-even ridiculed for having
my own. Now, the academy turns about face-to say, I---the student, the individual reader creates unique meaning. Ironic, how the society based on individualism crushes the individual to
homogenize to the conformity required to feel and think American; while the collectivist culture
of the Pacific values the individual in the group. At the same time, the Western-influenced local
education academy attempts to reteach Indigenous knowledge for Indigenous instruction to
Indigenous students; labeling the representation with a hegemonic meaning.
Hegemony: Merriam-Webster (2002) defines hegemony as having a “preponderant influence or
authority”.
Hall calls attention to hegemony as an oppressive ideology, “oppression as a cooperative
achievement”. Here the hegemony of culture comes through consent of the subordinate classes
by the hegemonic culture, while the dominant group; “inserts the subordinate class into the key
institutions and structures which support the power and social authority of the dominate order,
living its subordination” (Hall 1976). All the more reason to clearly articulate the role of outsider
teachers and insider teachers, to include the bias each brings with them, in the application of
reading theory for Indigenous Pacific Islander students. Most importantly to learn for ourselves,
the Indigenous nature of Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory, which evolves from our inherent
value of Inafa’maolek, and what the theory represents to us; then build on Indigenous Pedagogy
for the development of cultural appropriate curriculum and instruction. Probst describes the
transactional principles of instruction with the core of 1) primary responses, 2) cooperative
classroom environment, and 3) expanding literary knowledge of self and society. While he goes
on to suggests the stance and selection of transactional theory derives positioning from the
perception of the reader; however, the role of teacher to create awareness of the possibilities for
meaning may find a trap door behind outsider and insider-educator bias, clearly represented in
personal observations of many of my colleagues in the current Master of Arts in Teaching
program. Bringing to fruition, Hall’s point, “because the oppressed must work and have much of
their existence within organizations and structures controlled by the elite, they must adapt to the expectations and ideas of the hegemonic”.
Again, this essay attempts to critically discuss the implications of Rosenblatt’s “transactional theory of reading” for teaching reading to a culturally and linguistically diverse student population, from a Native Studies perspective. Drawing on cultural studies of Stuart Hall, this essay begins to unmask the ideology behind hegemony, discourse, and the re-positioning of meaning; setting course towards an “Inafa’maolek Theory of Reading” for Indigenous Students of the Pacific. Any further acceptance of representations made by outsiders on the foundations of Indigenous epistemology only consents to the oppression of our culture. Such hegemonic discourse requires Indigenous reconstruction to ensure meaning for ourselves,
by ourselves in a counter-hegemonic context. Thus the renaming of said theory, from an
inherently natural system of knowledge creation, to “Inafa’maolek Theory of Reading”.
REFERENCES
“Stuart Hall and Cultural Studies: Decoding Cultural Oppression”; http://www.pineforge.com/
upm-data/13286_Chapter_2_Web_Byte__Stuart_Hall.pdf; accessed Aug.4, 2011.
“Inafa’maolek”, Dr. Katherine Aguon; http://guampedia.com/inafamaolek/; accessed Aug. 4,
2011
“Fundamentals of Human Communication”; Devito, Joseph, 9th Edition.
"Transactional Theory in the Teaching of Literature"; Probst, R.E.; ERIC Clearinghouse on
Reading and Communication Skills; Urbana, IL; http://campus.uogdistance.com/file.php/405/
Transactional_Theory_in_the_Teaching_of_Literature_ERIC_Digest.htm; accessed Aug.4, 2011
