Response to Hansen-Thomas's Review of Identity and Second Language Learning. Miguel Mantero, The University of Alabama

Response to Hansen-Thomas’ Review of Identity and Second Language Learning. Miguel Mantero The University of Alabama January 13, 2008 I appreciate the effort expended by Dr. Hansen-Thomas in her review of my volume Identity and Second Language Learning. I always look forward to critical reviews and suggestions from the field, and Dr. Hansen-Thomas is able to grasp some of the more salient points in the volume. Although the appraisal is approving (for the most part) of the volume, I want to clarify some of the theoretical assumptions which she implies throughout her review. Doing so, will hopefully enable readers of the review to re-interpret some of her comments and further illuminate the contributions of each chapter in the volume. The reviewer states that I situate identity “squarely within a pedagogical setting.” I understand why the reviewer, after a cursory consideration of the volume’s contents, may initially suppose this. But, I would like to make sure that the readers understand what I believe is a “pedagogical setting” (the term used by the reviewer – not by me). By “pedagogical settings” the reviewer may be referring only to traditional, school-based classrooms. If so, then I respectfully (but completely) disagree with her interpretation, statement, and stance. For me, the term “pedagogical settings” refers to contexts and educational activities which are informed by and reflect authentic, real world activities. True pedagogical settings extend beyond and include more than classrooms where the traditional roles of teachers and students are prescribed and ascribed to by some. In true pedagogical settings, languages and identities come to life and emerge through meaning-driven discourse. This process clearly extends beyond the limits and walls of traditional language classrooms. Typically, traditionalists with little experience in contemporary language education environments would describe the process of identity development and language learning as taking place in the following atmosphere: the teacher is always right, students are simple, empty vessels to be filled, class is over (as well as any learning or development) in 50 minutes, and language learning equals mimicry. As I clearly say in my volume, which is acknowledged – but, glossed over - by the reviewer, the ensuing chapters encompass the spirit of a post-structural view of identity. Given this, I would hope that the reader does not initially approach the volume from a traditionalist perspective. This would lead to a misinterpretation of the purpose of the volume or some of its contents. As I clearly state in the foreword: “This collection of research has attempted to capture the essence and promise embodied in the concept of ‘identity’ and built a bridge to the realm of second language studies” and that “[t]his volume brings to light the diversity of research in identity and second language studies….” Although I believe the reviewer is (re)acting objectively, she does not fully grasp the purpose of some of the chapters given what I perceive to be the traditionalist inclination of some of her opinions. Her comments on chapters 2, 8, and 15 encompass my concern. As an example, I shall elaborate on chapter 2 below. In some regards, identity development and language learning are highly reliant on the pragmatics of discourse. I believe that by keeping this statement and the aforementioned purpose of the volume in mind, the intention of the chapter is evident: to further prepare and invite the reader to (re)visit established and traditional notions of intercultural and interpersonal communication. I believe the reviewer almost made this connection. However, a traditionalist approach to this volume would handicap even the most avid reader. One needs to be able to envision Grice’s work as foundation for critical thought in order to fully appreciate the chapter. I disagree with the reviewer’s statements that some chapters are “disorganized and even a bit sloppy” and that there are “flaws” in the volume. I see no purpose in these trite observations. I stand behind the volume’s strengths and acknowledge its limitations (as well as any editorial oversights – for example, dividing the volume into sections). The beauty of what we endeavor to do as scholars and researchers lies in creating a dialogue and enabling a lively discussion about issues and not about unjustified opinions. However, some may not be fully able to access the former given one’s limited experiences in language education and present knowledge regarding issues in identity development. The reviewer’s comments as to the studies lacking consistency in the quality of writing and research design are not fully contextualized and perhaps misguided. If nothing else, the process of identity development and second language learning is anything but consistent across cultures, communities, and within individuals. Given this, critical and novel approaches to research designs and original presentations of studies are necessary and crucial to the field. If not, then we may continue to suffer traditions and traditionalists that embrace and champion formulaic and predictable research designs as well as pedestrian perspectives on the complexities of true pedagogical settings.