EngComp 1552: Uses of Literacy

Ooops. We forgot to celebrate today in class! But I think that our healthy discussion today–on the uses of literacy as liberator and as weapon, the fuzzy distinction between oral and literate practices, the problem with claiming the phonetic alphabet as superior to others, and the ways that writing culture online and in textbooks allows people to shift history as Goody and Watt claim oral cultures do–counts as a celebration. Next time someone should bring cupcakes though.

Here’s coverage from the UN News Centre and a statement from the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon on International Literacy Day, which is focused on empowering women through literacy.

I find it interesting how unproblematic the assertion of “illiterates” is there. But then, as Gee says, I also have a lot of sympathy for the “aspirin bottle problem.” Basic reading and writing skills can be immensely beneficial to the daily lives of women everywhere. By questioning definitions of “illiteracy,” I’m certainly not arguing against education for girls and young women.

Still, I have mixed feelings about this: “All evidence shows that investment in literacy for women yields high development dividends.”

What do you think?

Royster’s article references the theory of literacy as a sociopolitical action.  Central to that action is the use of language as “an act or tool of communication” and that “communicator must have internalized sociolinguistic knowledge and be able o use that knowledge to ‘read’ a situation and create a meaning that can be conveyed to others”.  Although slaves were considered to be illiterate, they used songs to communicate important information and convey meaning to each other.  They were able to communicate intricate message though coding systems int he songs.  There were the salves truly illiterate according to our modern day view of what literacy means?

In Goody’s article, pg 43, he states “As for personal awareness of this individualization, other factors doubtless contributed, but writing itself (especially in its simpler, more cursive forms) was of great importance. For writing, by objectifying words, and by making them and their meaning available for much more prolonged and intensive scrutiny than is possible orally, encourages private thought; the diary or the confession enables the individual to objectify his own experience, and gives him some check upon the  transmutations of memory under the influences of subsequent events. And then, if the diary is later published, a wider audience can have concrete experience of the differences  that exist in the histories of their fellow men from a record of a life which has been partially  insulated from the assimilative process of oral transmission.”  To this, I think we must question his basic assumption, that the written word may be subject to more intense scrutiny, given that earlier in the piece Goody brought in and agreed with Plato’s argument that the oral culture has a deeper effect on the individual and their culture.  However, I think a much deeper question is present here as well.  Is the manner in which an idea or thought delivered impact the depth of the idea and the thought which may take place regarding it?  To that extent, does the language one speaks/communicates in affect the depth of individual thought that can take place, and if so does a society which exists in an exclusively oral medium placed at a disadvantage?

Hello, class! I hope your labor day weekends are going well. I chose to celebrate mine by synthesizing some of our inchoate definitions of literacy. Here goes!

The understanding and comprehension assertion that we discussed in class comes up again in Katie’s post, in chg38’s post, and in mwishee’s post, although chg38 and mwishee draw a distinction between the two whereas Katie does not. Cof6 doesn’t bring up the distinction explicitly, but uses understanding and comprehending as synonyms. So it seems we’re not all in agreement on the words we’re using. But there is a sense of consensus that literacy isn’t just decoding; it’s also comprehension. I like the way kvb8 puts it, “literacy extends beyond the shallow act of simply scanning a page or lifting a pencil; a literate person should be able to learn from what they’re reading/writing.”

We see a need for production of language, rather than just reception, or as chg38 humorously writes: “is literacy all that complete if all you can do is take it in and not dish it out?” Using the “unmarked” definition that Barton points out of “illiteracy” to be the basis of his definition of literacy, sm90 agrees that “it seems imperative to consider both comprehension and production crucial aspects of the definition [of literacy].” And in her short explanation, pigtaily biker writes that “literacy operates on both ends of the spectrum as far as interpreting or expressing.” The idea of “exchange” seems to merge both the “understanding” and “production” aspects of literacy in dgdz’s definition.

The notion of standardization, or agreement, as in lms103’s post: “literacy points to an understanding of an agreed system of notation that makes a language common and definable.”  The word “standard” makes it into dgdz’s definition, and he wrestles with what that means for the concept of “cultural literacy,” which, he points out, none of us addressed in our conversation in class despite its relevance and prominance in such current icons as Justin Bieber. We all know who he is, right?

Participation is key to knc20’s definition because participation “is the ultimate goal of literacy.”  Cinnabarhorse agrees and clarifies that this means active, not passive participation. In other words, literacy is about communication with others. But this definition for knc20 also covers the fact that communication changes across different communities and times—literacy is dynamic.

Levels of literacy are addressed by cof6 and by sbelle, who writes “I do feel that a certain level of proficiency is assumed when discussing literacy.” However,  sbelle thinks it’s too subjective to include the measure of how well one reads or writes in a general definition of literacy so she refrains from including it. The issue of age as a factor in levels of literacy erupts in kms186’s definition. She doesn’t want to leave younger kids who are learning their alphabets out of her definition, but she admits their understanding is limited.

Lilypolo is clear about how literacy can involve many different domains of language, such as computer literacy, sign language, etc. The center of alp89’s definition is language, and in her clarification of what she means by language, she agrees with lilypolo that it can include sign language and other languages. Language governs gap23’s choice of words in her definition, although she declines to go into specifics on why. The definition of language is something that blhein wrestles with, and ultimately arrives at a more general sense of communication because she doesn’t seem to want to draw the line between textual and bodily communication; she writes “literacy is communication in all forms possible (human, animal, alien, etc.).” Interestingly, although JennReed1220 says that she’s keeping her definition broad, she cuts body language communication out of her definition of literacy, hence contradicting lilypolo and blhein; according to JennReed1220, “literacy is based upon manipulating a spoken language that is then transferred to print.”

The issue of enjoyment vexes kvb8 in her definition; she wants to include it but doesn’t go quite that far. Also referring to mood and affect, rad75 wants to extend her definition to include creativity and inspiration in writing. I wonder, is there a reason we might want to include feeling and inspiration in our definition, but don’t quite go there?

Some additional, general observations I made reading through all of these…

Few people pointed to the shortcomings in their definitions. Does that mean there were none?

Also, the “it’s too big for me to do an adequate job of defining” is an intellectual cop-out! Of course it’s too big! That’s why we have a whole course on literacy. But wrestling with and trying out new ideas is how we make our brains strong. BRAINZ!

Not that there was a contest, but if there had been, the best title would go to cinnabarhorse for “i put the racy in literacy!” I mentioned on the first day that I wanted to look at literacy differently after this class, too; cinnabarhorse has already helped me do that. 😛

Thanks, everyone, for sharing your definitions with me and the class! I look forward to seeing how they evolve for all of us.

Most especially inspired by the many complexities presented in the Goody and Watt article, I am wondering what the relationship is between literacy and truth.  This article purports that more literate societies are more individualized, more aware of history with regards to the present, and thereby more forced to examine issues, inconsistencies, and problems arising between the disparities created by these many overlapping relationships.  Does this also then assume that literate societies are better able to determine social, scientific, existential, or metaphysical truths?  Wouldn’t a society who was more focused on just the relevant present (illiterate) be better at discovering social truths?  Did the article section about Socrates/Plato/Aristotle convince us that oral tradition served to better determine existential or metaphysical truths?  What relationship, if any, is there between literacy and the determination of truths for a given society do you think?

In the Goody article the idea that a literate culture = a more individualistic culture is presented. Goody argues that a society based solely on oral tradition lacks the ability to achieve any sort of individualism. However, in an earlier section of the article Goody discusses how the Ancient Greeks thought that great discussions of philosophy were only possible when done orally. In other words, it is impossible to achieve a high level of great philosophical debate through written word. In my opinion, philosophy cannot exist with individualism as a great debate features many differing opinions volleying back and forth. What do you make of Goody’s argument? Is a non-literate society really incapable of possessing some sort of individualism? Also, Goody suggests that individualism is present in a literate society because although there are many ideas that overlap the large amount of opinions and thoughts allows individualism to reign dominant. Thoughts on this portion of the discussion? Overall, which side of the argument do you consider yourself to be a part of? Do you believe that individualism is possible in both societies, in merely one society or not at all in either society?

Gee’s article, Literacy and the Literacy Myth poses different ideas about the social outcomes of being literate. Gee argues that traditionalists believe that “interpretation is a matter of what goes on in the mind” and that the “right interpretation is the same for all competent readers” (39). With this in mind, is it fair to say that there is a ‘right’ way to construct interpretation of a text? And if so, what is the the point of criticizing and analyzing a written text if everyone decodes the same  interpretation? Is there any legitimate claim to traditionalists view according to Gee?

Here goes nothing:

The Gee and Royster articles both make clear that literacy (as well as policies and perceptions related to literacy) is a social justice issue. Gee mentions that school systems tend to reinforce the established class system; would the simplification of common-place literacy practices (such as re-writing aspirin bottle warnings to be more easily scrutable) also help entrench social inequities? Less specifically, how does a society reconcile the need for more honest and authentic forms of literacy (a social justice issue), with the presumed goal of increasing the conventional literacy standard, to the point where more people can understand a text like, say, Ulysses (also mentioned by Gee)? How can pragmatic goals be reconciled with less-pressing aesthetic or intellectual ones?

I think that Literacy is the learned ability to not only read and write the basic meaning of a word but to understand the overarching meaning of what is being communicated in context.

Literacy is the ability to understand and relay communication.