Looking at
Dennis Baron’s article, From Pencils to
Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies, and Anne Wysocki and Johndan
Johnson-Eilola’s essay, Blinded by the
Letter: Why Are We Using Literacy as a Metaphor for Everything Else? juxtaposed
on my computer screen, I just have to laugh at the incongruity of it all. Even
people who haven’t read these particular texts can guess how they might present
opposing ideas about literacy. Eventually I came to agree with much of the
thesis presented by Wysocki and Johnson-Eilola, and so it is from their
perspective that I base the discussion of this post.
Right from the
onset of the paper, Wysocki and Johnson-Eilola questioned the word “literacy”
and what “bundles,” or connotations/nuances/messages, this word carries. They pointed
out that for many people, literacy means “basic, neutral, context-less set of
skills whose acquisition will bring the bearer economic and social goods and
privilege” (352). Grounded on this assumption is our cultural expectation
that literacy would revolutionize political, social, or economic systems. At
least this much is evident even in the first paragraph of Baron’s article: “The
computer is also touted as a gateway to literacy. The Speaker of the House of
Representatives suggested that inner-city school children should try laptops to
improve their performance. The Governor of Illinois thinks that hooking up
every school classroom to the Web will eliminate illiteracy” (15). In
context, Baron’s primary focus is on the computer as the latest tool in writing
technology. However, take a look at what this excerpt says about literacy. Why
were these government officials interested in incorporating computers and the
Internet into educational settings? They aimed to “eliminate illiteracy.” Now
think about, at one of the most basic levels, what we hope education offers to
kids and later, young adults: a chance to further their career options, make
money, discover happiness, and lead “the good life.” If you assume that illiteracy blocks a person’s potential
for leading the so-called good life, then on the same token, you might also
believe that literacy is the
precursor for the good life. And yet, Wysocki and Johnson-Eilola asserted that,
“[L]iteracy alone—some set of basic skills—is not what improves people’s lives”
(353).
If literacy
promises of political, social, or economic improvement, then, as Wysocki and
Johnson-Eilola argue, books are the physical representation of that promise. Or
in these writers’ own words, “[D]ream and value and self and culture and world
seem to be fully enclosed within literacy, objectified in—and not separable
from—the book” (357-358). Baron described the tools for writing as “literacy
technologies”—which included books, pencils, and even writing itself. In his
essay, Baron emphasized that computers should be included among the list of literacy
technologies: “My contention in this essay is a modest one: the computer is
simply the latest step in a long line of writing technologies” (17). But
remember, the word “literacy” implies the attainment of the good life. If
computers are part of the tools leading toward that attainment of the good
life, how will that affect the way we view computers?
Baron mentioned
that new technologies are often met with resistance. “As the old technologies become
automatic and invisible, we find ourselves more concerned with fighting or
embracing what’s new” (31). Well, if those technologies are framed as the tools
for literacy, we shouldn't be surprised at such strong reactions from people.
On one hand, some people may cling to the belief that the current, particular “literacy
tool” would help them find the good life; the advent of a new tool would
signify the need for adjustment and further learning—the good life wouldn't come as quickly as they thought. On the other hand, some people may realize the
current literacy tool isn't helping them attain the good life, and a new
literacy tool would offer renewed hope toward that end. Perhaps this is why the rise of new technology
fosters such controversy: it forces people to evaluate what they consider the
good life to be, and “how’s that going” for them.
I found it very interesting how literacy for many individuals translates into economic and social goods and privileges. I would agree with this idea for two reasons. Firstly there is a historical aspect to this view, in past centuries intellectuals and specifically people that could read and write, received more respect. Also the wealthy made it a point to become educated and educate their children, either because they could afford to or because it was a standard of the social class. And with the desire to educate wealthy children, they will eventually become wealthy. The second reason that I concur with this notion of literacy is because we as a society follow people that openly enact their literacy. Think back to past government or historical figures that started movements; they were fabulous speakers. These individuals not necessarily manipulated literacy, but simply capitalized on their strengths within the idea of literacy and communication. And in doing so they became powerful and fell into what many people believe is an outcome of literacy.
ReplyDeleteI already mentioned this example in class, but I want to put it up on the blog because it reinforces the idea of literacy leading to success.
I am also a marketing major if you didn’t already know, in our final year all business students are required to take a class that focuses on leadership. Our teacher has worked in many companies around the world and seems to have become very successful in her career. Each day in class we are required to write a small reflection on what we read and a question that we have for our professor. Last week a student asked, “How do you keep on learning after all these years?” After a brief pause she picked up a book and replied, “I am always reading. Either books about my career and leadership, free reading or even the morning news, it is all important. You can never read too much.” She went on to say, “reading is the key to becoming successful and staying successful, because reading does not promote stagnancy.”
Sadie,
ReplyDeleteI have to approach literacy in the same manner that you do, that is with hesitation. Not only my failure to deconstruct the word literacy and examine its nuances, but my tendency to openly accept the application of the term without question is evidence enough for me that literacy is not enough. Literacy is the illusion of opportunity, the phantom steps up the social ladder. In and of itself it can certainly contribute to advancement, but it is presented in such a way that the illiterate are stigmatized, and it is thus used as a tool to handicap those without the available resources to attain literacy. With so much emphasis placed on literacy, those without access to it are rendered inadequate, incapable of participating in the discourse necessary to achieve true social advancement. We can talk all day about the importance of literacy because we are all literate, but for those who cannot obtain it, it is antithetical to their achievement of the "good life."
There is no argument over literacy being conducive to knowledge attainment. It is literacy as a symbol that troubles me. I hope you can sense all the nuances of my argument and know that it is not with you that I argue. The thing to which I am in opposition is accepting something on authority without critically analyzing. It seems even literacy lacks the capacity to resolve this tendency.
Knowledge is power, and I believe that with literacy and with "knowledge" can definitely lead to the good life. WIth knowledge/literacy (I guess I am using the two terms hand-in-hand for the time being) can come opportunity, adventure, exposure to different things, money, success, etc. Literacy alone will not promise that sort of life, but it is definitely the stepping stone for MORE. More money, more opportunities, more success, more connections. Now who knows if the link from computers to literacy is the answer to our problems, or if the link is even 100% accurate. Certainly there is more to illiteracy than just not being able to read/write and by simply giving under privileged kids computers will not solve that, but possibly by taking a closer look at what makes up illiteracy and the more complex issues of this problem, we can do more to combat it than simply handing people computers.
ReplyDelete