Our class discussion on Thursday revolved around how people of different socioeconomic backgrounds potentially may be lacking in literacy for several reasons, such as motivational factors, home and or work distractions, and potentially who their sponsors of literacy are. For the readings, they discussed a different outlook on why reading levels might be low, and the answer to that is a problem with cultural assimilation.
Based on the readings, and your thoughts on cultural assimilation, immigration, etc., do you believe that immigrants and minorities should conform to already established customs and attitudes that have set the bar for the importance of literacy? Or do you think we should take a pluralist approach, meaning that our nation should be open to different ethnic, religious, and cultural groups to exercise their individuality and help strengthen the ever-evolving definition of literacy so that no one is illiterate? In other words, should those who come into the USA be forced to become like “us,” or should we strive to broaden the meaning of what it is to be a literate American citizen to something more? What dangers do you foresee if we were to remain very by the book or if we were to take more of a pluralist approach?
There are definitely benefits and deficits to both views.
I don’t mean to side with the conformist approach, but it does have its benefits. Settling upon a single standard of literacy and making everyone adhere to that standard makes it easier to standardize and normalize the average level of literacy in the U.S. It can also provide a literate basis of sorts that one needs to reach to truly become a “functioning” member of society. On the other hand, adopting a conformist attitude is inherently culturally biased. It assumes that U.S. literacy standards are superior and should be adopted by all cultural groups when this may not actually be the case. Additionally, individuals from different cultures and ethnicity could meet varying levels of difficulty in adopting this standard.
In a similar manner, the pluralist approach has both benefits and deficits. Opening up the standard of literacy to the influence of various groups gives it the potential to grow and develop into something eclectic and potentially better. However, these multiple influences also have the potential to have a negative overall effect on literacy.
I found the Kate Vieira article about immigration and cultural assimilation very profound because it raised a few key points (covered in the question) and it also gave a brief synopsis of how the Azoreans got to America which intrigued me. I think that many of your questions you asked have two sides to them, meaning they could go either way depending on who you talked to.
Regarding your original question of whether immigrants should be forced to conform and strive to America’s bar set on literacy, I say yes and no. I say yes because if you are immigrating (legally) into the States, you have to pass a series of tests and oral exams like the one we did in class today. You must have some working form of literacy to understand and answer those questions in order to become a citizen. You may not have to be as literate as say a Princeton Literature Major, but you have to have some sense of what is going on around you. Having said that, I do not see why it is necessary to conform to our high literacy standards, however. I reason with this because for the most part immigrants are do end up working the blue collar jobs. For these jobs, you do not need a college degree and most certainly do not need to be the most literate person you could be. So, I think our nation should take an approach somewhere in the middle of conformist and pluralist. It just seems like the obvious, everyone gets what they want answer.
Also, I thought about something when you said “should those who come into the USA be forced to become like ‘us.'” On a more literate sense, what does it mean to conform to us? From our other reading this week, we saw the people of Appalachia are extremely illiterate and we obviously know that another large portion of America is extremely literate. So, I am struggling to see the meaning when you say “conform to us” because we have such a broad range of people in America. I think it would be very hard to conform to us because what is the actual level of literacy for one of “us”.
I see problems with both of the approaches. Like pjhaggs said, who is to say that conforming to our way of literacy is necessarily the correct one and if it is the “correct” one, who is going to teach the “correct” way of literacy to all of the immigrants. Like we have discussed before, literacy is much more than reading and writing. It can be social and environmental cues as well. Inferences and the way people incoherently look at the world is also a form of innate literacy, so how would you teach an immigrant to “think like an American” as well. I imagine it would be very hard and to teach that. With the pluralist approach, the most obvious issue is a matter of so many different histories and backgrounds will most certainly cause tension in the US, whether it has to do with literacy or not. I think the key is to conform to a point, but then let the individual be themselves because after all, America is supposed to be about freedom.
“Or do you think we should take a pluralist approach, meaning that our nation should be open to different ethnic, religious, and cultural groups to exercise their individuality and help strengthen the ever-evolving definition of literacy so that no one is illiterate?” To me his question seems quite idealistic. It sounds like a grand question with righteous intentions. I feel as if everyone should has the right to practice their own individuality but I think that the reason for the US literacy standard is much more practical.
I mean that there are practical reasons behind the standard of literacy that has been set. For example, someone who has met or surpassed the literacy standard has an inherent advantage in the US workforce. They are much likely to find a higher paying job and this high literacy can help them avoid some of the blue collar jobs that are associated with less literate individuals.
So I don’t necessarily think that anyone should be forced to conform to literacy standards, I think that all individuals should at least be aware and understand the purpose of the literacy standards and the “consequences” in today’s society if they are not able to meet that literacy standard.
I feel as though both positions you mention (pluralist vs. “by the book”) with regards to how we view literacy or the lack there of represents two extremes and, as with most things, it would be idea to find a middle ground approach.
With regards to the “by the book” view you mention, I think of the clichè phrase “you can bring a horse to water but you can’t make him drink”. Basically, any attempt to force migrant populations to assimilate would not only fail on moral grounds but would also do more harm then good in achieving any desired outcome.
However, to be too lax in our approach and say that it’s not a problem for sake of accommodation might be polite, yet ineffective in helping people integrate into what they may wish to make their new home. There are some realities of life which become unavoidably difficult if one does not speak/read in the language which is predominant to that area, and merely recognizing this fact and seeking to address it does not automatically make someone intolerant to different cultures.
I think we should find ways to make new migrant populations assimilation process EASIER and more ACCESSIBLE without implying that there doing so means they must forsake what is already a strong part of their identity e.g. language, culture, etc. If a middle ground in which you can reasonably have both and do it with relative ease was aimed for I do not see why more would not strive for such an area in both practical and sentimental senses.