EngComp 1552: Uses of Literacy

Resnick states that “not all segments of our population have come to demand literacy skills of the kind that educators, members of Congress, and other government officials think necessary” (371).  They seem to be saying that not everyone has to speak like a Congressman because – quite simply – not everyone will have to speak like that in his profession.  If this is the case, how do we – as teachers – ensure that students become literate?  Are we to lower literacy standards (i.e., lower than those required by businessmen and government officials)?  Are we to teach different curriculums based on which profession the student is interested?

To me, this quote then relates to “functional literacy.”  Resnick points out that “this mass-literacy criterion [i.e., functional literacy] is stronger than that of any earlier period of history” (383).  Why do you think this is?  Is it such a bad thing that more and more people are now considered to be only functionally literate?

I was wondering about the Johnny articles, and the fact that students have really poor writing.  Does this mean that because many students still receive good and passing grades in their freshman writing classes or even higher level courses, that teachers’ standards of grading went down?  The article also mentioned a kind of laziness of the teachers because as the classrooms became fuller, the requirements of writing placed upon the students became much easier for the teachers to grade, so short-answer questions instead of actual essays.  Do you think the grading is reflective on the teachers standards of grading going down with the ability of students to write or rather on their laziness in grading?

In her article, Heath explains that Trackton does not place a high value of print literacy in the home, and that adults “do not buy books for [their children]” and they “do not create reading and writing tasks for the young” either.  She further explains that “to read alone was found upon, and individuals who did so were accused of being antisocial”.  In this way it seems that literacy and orality in Trackton are completely intertwined and linked.  Do you think that this is why in societies that are not saturated with literacy in the home orality is so prevalent and the desire to master print literacy is lacking? Is it in societies such as these that the lines of literacy and orality are almost completely blurred? What would need to occur that would transition a society such as this one into one that values print literacy in the home?

One of the key points that really stuck out to me in Heath’s article was her discussion of literacy as an equalizing mechanism in society.  For the people of Trackton, literacy was almost always a shared event.  Its primary uses dealt with communication between people, about events concerning groups, and to supplement common knowledge or beliefs already held by people.  Reading “alone” marks out individuals “that can’t make it socially”.    The only written material not shared communally seems to concern things that would disrupt the balance of community equality in some way.  Furthermore, almost all other written materials are not primarily valued for their contents, but rather for the discussions and communal beliefs they inspire.  Is this equality stunting the literacy possibilities of the people of Trackton?  If they aren’t reading information for what it is most of the time, developing ideas on their own, are they doing themselves a disservice by placing such a community, extrapolative value on reading and writing?  Or are the people of Trackton onto something bigger when it comes to literacy–should we remember more often that reading and writing can only be taken in context, and discussed with others to be fully appreciated and understood?  To what extent is it good or bad for literacy to be an equalizing medium in society?

In Heath’s piece the children were in fact not initially taught to read but to decode the pictures and the fonts of products to check the prices. In turn, the children were able to understand at an early age through sponsorship of older siblings or peers the decoding of prices and the symbols to associate with certain brands. In comparison, Cornelius discusses the reading process of slaves while under the rule of a white master. “Reading is considered to be a two pronged effort, involving both decoding and comprehension,” according to Cornelius.

With the two articles in mind, discuss the similarities and differences between the two ways of decoding and comprehension that both authors suggest.

As I read the Cornelious piece, I tried to draw connections between the risks a slave would take in order to learn to read, and our own educational and social attitudes towards literacy learning. It’s hard to fathom anyone in modern American society risking the severing of a thumb for literacy. But, on the other hand, “knowledge and information” still help “one to survive in a hostile environment.” Or at least I believe that they do.

If that particular quote still holds true, how do we teach literacy (even metacognitively) as the means to survive, withstand and, perhaps, overcome the conditions of hostile environments? In what ways is our cultural environment hostile? Or are the stakes so completely different that it’s pointless to draw connections here?

There was some discussion last class about explicitly creating propaganda for the purpose of convincing children and adults to pursue literacy for their personal benefit, similar to the “Be All You Can Be” slogan of the army (“Read All You Can Read”?). Although this suggestion may have been in jest, it increased in seriousness the more we discussed it, and was never fully refuted. I would like to attempt that refutation.

The argument put forth last class was essentially, “If they don’t know literacy is good for them, and they won’t listen when we tell them, then we’ll just have to brainwash them.” Well no, we won’t have to brainwash them, and here is why: we’re not Commies. To intentionally sound trite, America was built on freedom, and I won’t let anyone tell other people they should be literate. But isn’t that a contradiction? Yes. However, I am willing to limit the freedom of literacy-pushers to save the freedom of literacy-resisters. There are some people in this world who are content with their levels of education or literacy, and those who spread propaganda evangelizing the benefits of literacy to them are like members of the…Literate Day Saints.

I am not arguing that we should stop evangelizing the greatness of literacy. It is a wonderful thing. But we must never allow ourselves to think literacy is the only truth. We must always allow individuals to choose for themselves whether or not they wish to become literate. If this choice is never given, as was the case in many articles we have read throughout this class, of course it should be offered. But not forced.

One reason I am not a teacher is because I could never insist that a child learn something she doesn’t want to learn. I would try to reason with her and convince her to improve, but if she continued to resist, I would let her flunk out and hope for the best. Some of the best writers and artists never made it through high school (William Faulkner anyone?) because they could not deal with the social pressure exerted through school. In my opinion, the role of a teacher is to teach those who wish to learn; you can deduce my attitude towards No Child Left Behind and its Kafkaesque metrics.

To preemptively respond to the argument that an illiterate population is incapable of supporting a democracy, my answer is: what democracy? America hasn’t been a democracy since the 1920s, if ever. But how will America remain competitive against other nations if we don’t insist our citizens become literate, thinking individuals? Luckily, globalization is making irrelevant the concept of nation-states, so we won’t have to worry about that anymore. Even so, as long as the free market works its invisible magic like it always has, there will be plenty of literate, thinking individuals to fill all the positions that require them.

To summarize, please do not view education as a modern day Crusade. It will only lead to more institutions, more standardized tests, more studies, more results, more policies, more failures, more wasted time, more ADD, more medicine, more stress, more degradation, and more alienation. Let those who wish to learn learn, and those who wish to play play. Education, literacy included, is not for everyone, and we should stop wishing it were.

/Rant  =D

Let the slaughter begin!

-Daniel the Longhair

Cintron’s article Angels’ Town details different ways of communicating gang affiliation using main stream symbols that would otherwise seem innocent when looked at outside of a gang perspective.  The primary example used in the article is gang members wearing specific athletic team jerseys, using the teams colors to represent their chosen gang colors and thus show other members which gang they were affiliated with. 

Cintron also makes the statement that “[h]and signs, tattoos, jewelry, clothes, oral language, and miscellaneous objects used the same vocabulary to signal one’s gang affiliations and to insult other gangs” (166).

This brings me to a question that I’ve struggled with throughout this course.  Should we include aspects of communication other than the written word as a form of literacy?  Do you really need to be literate in gang signs and vocabulary to understand their warning or is their symbolic literacy only necessary for members themselves?  Would outsiders benefit from becoming more literate about gang members inner workings?

And an optional question slightly unrelated to literacy:  Near the end of the article, Cintron brings up the idea of giving gang members a legitimate voice in communities.  Do you think that including gang leaders at town hall meetings would help the city and gangs understand each other and work together better or would it only lead to more distruction?  Is there a chance that by giving gang members a legitimate voice to make changes in the community that they may finally feel legitimately respected and thus stop their destructive ways in attempt to gain illegitimate respect?

“Through their social actions, including their words, they establish their identities as knowledgeable people, socially included friends, and powerful actors; and, embedded in their actions is knowledge […]” (Dyson 326). Children are often actors in ways that they don’t realize. They change themselves according to who is around; they conform to their surroundings in order to fit in. How does literacy and culture affect behaviors around peers and teachers?

In Ralph Cintron’s article, he emphasizes that there is more to graffiti than we assume. He reflects on something seemingly simple, murals we often note as pure artwork or symbols of violence. However, he claims graffiti is composed of a complex code of writing–it is literacy as artwork.

Cintron states, “If my earlier descriptions of street-gang graffiti relied heavily on linguistic terms such as ‘syntax’ or ‘lexicon,’ it was to prepare the foundation for describing graffiti as a special kind of narrative genre whose deeper meanings were not explicit but which rested on a large substratum of related but private oral and written texts” (178).

Do you agree with Cintron’s assessment of this hidden “narrative genre”? Does he weigh the level of its literacy too heavily? Based on your own interpretation of Cintron’s described genre, what do you make of public actions against it? Can this be seen as a restriction of this culture’s expression of literacy?