Clive and Sylvia should definitely look into the possibility of starting a relationship with one another. Not only because they share common beliefs when it comes to issues of literacy, but also because who wouldn't want to get a Christmas card, "With love from Clive and Sylvia"? What great names.
That being said, the two articles fit well together. Sylvia attempts to qualify what exactly constitutes literacy, so we have a basis for the concept on which to judge whether or not "we" are literate. Then Clive comes in, bottom of the ninth, bases loaded, and knocks it out of the park with his short but sweet, well written piece on why we are in fact not only literate, but maybe even more literate than we have ever been.
What is literacy? According to Sylvia, it isn't defined well. Many scholars have conflicting ideas on what distinguishes an illiterate person from his more educated counterpart. They have tried, and subsequently failed to come up with a concrete definition, while still "crusading for a national effort to make literacy a reality." (6) How can literacy become a reality if nobody knows what it is?
She continues by observing that literacy is actually a social achievement, rather than an individual one. It would be hard to become literate if there was no system of writing/language to understand and be able to think critically about.
And what if literacy is really just a subjective measure? Some places/people dont need the same level of reading and writing ability as others; its silly to think that an individual in a rural African village, such as a member of the Vai tribe, would ever need to be able to read and analyze 'War and Peace'. Their writing system does all it needs to do for them - "record[s] births, deaths, and marriages...sometimes dowry items to regulate kinship exchanges..." and enough to educate their children to become productive members of the society.
Just as the Vai tribes have their system that works for them, it appears that maybe "technology isn't killing our ability to write, its reviving it." (Thompson 1) Maybe "we", (as in my generation), learn better in a different way. Maybe, just maybe, we are actually more literate than ever. Between Facebook, texts, tweets, blogs, emails, and everything in between, we are reading and writing more than ever before. And we are doing it in a way that we actually like! Nobody likes to write a paper for a class because all the other forms of writing (Facebook, Blogs, etc..) we utilize are aimed at an audience, and in some way or another, no matter how small, "[have] an effect on the world." (Thompson 1) Contrary to this, a paper for school speaks only to one person, the professor, and "it [doesn't] serve any purpose other than to get a grade." (Thompson 1)
Going back to what Sylvia said about individual literacy being relative to social literacy, with all the networking going on in this day and age, it seems we are literate. But we are taking a different way to get there. Not to say that more people are literate than ever before, but I would argue that the people who are becoming literate, are doing so at a faster rate. With the explosion of the internet and social networking sites, its almost like one needs a Facebook to "keep up with the Jones". And as we know, Facebook is strangely addictive; this translates into more time spent reading and writing posts despite the fact that they are just little snippets of our thoughts and ideas.
To close, Id like to reference Sylvia when she says, "literacy needs to take into account the goal of the individual." Whether that be just enough to remember a present you received so you can return the favor, to analyze of a scholarly piece of writing, or to start in an online battle royale with someone (obviously by talking about them without actually using their name), if the goal is achieved, one could argue so is the concept of literacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment