Re-Thinking Literacy
Those of you who had my English 101 course began your semester with the Literacy Autobiography, a diagnostic essay designed to get you thinking about what it means to be a literate person, the process of becoming literate, and how you think about literacy. I admit, that first essay came from my days as a GTA in my master's program, and I'd taught it ever since because I liked the way it made my students squirm. No one seemed to like the assignment, and I think that is because they weren't accustomed to thinking about their literacy. It was just there, something to be taken for granted.
I'd fallen for the company line, though, in thinking about literacy as a buzzword used by politicians when they proclaim that literacy is the key to economic success, that illiteracy is akin to a disease that must be irradicated. I didn't consider literacy critically, nor did I ever really think about what I meant when I tossed the word around.
The word is fraught with implications, and it is very difficult to define. What do we mean when we talk about literacy? Do we mean simply the ability to read and write? If so, surely we must recognize that there are levels of ability there, and that some people read better than others, are more comfortable with challenging texts than others, are better writers than others.
So what then? Are we talking about minimal competency? The ability to sign one's name on their paycheck? To read a street sign? That doesn't work, either. That's too minimal. That sort of literacy alone would never get a person through English 101.
Do you have to enjoy Shakespeare to be considered truly literate? Do you have to read Moby Dick?
Do you see the problem? What is literacy?
Politicians toss the word around, and we all act like we know what it means, we think we know what it means, but in reality we have no idea. It is just a catch-all buzzword, and if it means something, it is extremely difficult to pinpoint that meaning.
If you've followed the controversy at Clemson about the required reading for incoming Freshman, it is crystal clear literacy is threatening to a great number of people, conservative people who wish to control the ideas that young people are exposed to. It is no different than the conservatives who were very much concerned with keeping their slaves from gaining literacy. If they learned to read, they might read the wrong text that put ideas about freedom in their heads.
The Clemson choice of books, Truth & Beauty by Ann Patchett, and I haven't read it, seems to have sparked controversy because of its sexual content. Conservatives always seem to want to control the sexuality of other people, especially the prized and cherished and innocent sexuality of young people, but I admit I'm a bit baffled where that presumption comes from. Why do they think they have that right? Where do they get off? (Pun intended)
But ultimately, literacy is about control. It is good to read and write, as long as it serves the State's interests. As long as you read the right texts, and are exposed to the right ideas, the right sexuality, and you don't think too critically, and you don't learn any of the wrong ideas, literacy is just hunky-dory.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, right? How many of my students had no intellectual curiosity whatsoever? A majority. As a teacher, I always wanted to inspire that curiosity in my students, but I'm no miracle worker, and I'm sure I failed much more than I suceeded. There is power in texts, as conservatives surely recognized when they came out against the Truth & Beauty, but I think they overreacted a bit. A person needs curiosity, intellectual curiosity, the desire to learn more than they already know, and the desire to seek that knowledge in texts, or any text, no matter how powerful or well-written, is lost on them.
In retrospect, in spite of my lack of critical consideration of literacy, I think I got one thing absolutely correct when I taught the Literacy Autobiography: Literacy is what you make it. You can take it as far as you want to go. It really is up to you.
I'd fallen for the company line, though, in thinking about literacy as a buzzword used by politicians when they proclaim that literacy is the key to economic success, that illiteracy is akin to a disease that must be irradicated. I didn't consider literacy critically, nor did I ever really think about what I meant when I tossed the word around.
The word is fraught with implications, and it is very difficult to define. What do we mean when we talk about literacy? Do we mean simply the ability to read and write? If so, surely we must recognize that there are levels of ability there, and that some people read better than others, are more comfortable with challenging texts than others, are better writers than others.
So what then? Are we talking about minimal competency? The ability to sign one's name on their paycheck? To read a street sign? That doesn't work, either. That's too minimal. That sort of literacy alone would never get a person through English 101.
Do you have to enjoy Shakespeare to be considered truly literate? Do you have to read Moby Dick?
Do you see the problem? What is literacy?
Politicians toss the word around, and we all act like we know what it means, we think we know what it means, but in reality we have no idea. It is just a catch-all buzzword, and if it means something, it is extremely difficult to pinpoint that meaning.
If you've followed the controversy at Clemson about the required reading for incoming Freshman, it is crystal clear literacy is threatening to a great number of people, conservative people who wish to control the ideas that young people are exposed to. It is no different than the conservatives who were very much concerned with keeping their slaves from gaining literacy. If they learned to read, they might read the wrong text that put ideas about freedom in their heads.
The Clemson choice of books, Truth & Beauty by Ann Patchett, and I haven't read it, seems to have sparked controversy because of its sexual content. Conservatives always seem to want to control the sexuality of other people, especially the prized and cherished and innocent sexuality of young people, but I admit I'm a bit baffled where that presumption comes from. Why do they think they have that right? Where do they get off? (Pun intended)
But ultimately, literacy is about control. It is good to read and write, as long as it serves the State's interests. As long as you read the right texts, and are exposed to the right ideas, the right sexuality, and you don't think too critically, and you don't learn any of the wrong ideas, literacy is just hunky-dory.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, right? How many of my students had no intellectual curiosity whatsoever? A majority. As a teacher, I always wanted to inspire that curiosity in my students, but I'm no miracle worker, and I'm sure I failed much more than I suceeded. There is power in texts, as conservatives surely recognized when they came out against the Truth & Beauty, but I think they overreacted a bit. A person needs curiosity, intellectual curiosity, the desire to learn more than they already know, and the desire to seek that knowledge in texts, or any text, no matter how powerful or well-written, is lost on them.
In retrospect, in spite of my lack of critical consideration of literacy, I think I got one thing absolutely correct when I taught the Literacy Autobiography: Literacy is what you make it. You can take it as far as you want to go. It really is up to you.
posted by Jason M. Wester at 12:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home