Deborah Brandt’s article, “Drafting U.S. Literacy” explores the idea that literacy “was irrevocably transformed from a nineteenth-century moral imperative into a twentieth-century production imperative” as a result of World War II (Brandt, 485). One of the most intriguing questions that the article raised for me was, “how were students motivated to learn to read and write in a time before it was necessary to make a living and support a family?” Brandt argues that in “the early religious societies of New England…a belief in literacy as a knowledge of right behavior was promulgated” (488). Literacy in that time was not applicable in the way that it is today. It was used mainly as a “road to virtue and self-discipline” and “submitting to the process of becoming literate mattered more than the actual results” (488). I believe that this approach, although successful in creating a moral imperative for literacy in the nineteenth-century, would fail in today’s society. With our society bent on economic gain and stability, the focus of literacy is more on who’s reading and writing ability will make the most money in the least amount of time. Today, I am much more motivated to work if I know that it will result in a better paying job out of college, not because it is the morally right thing to do.
The other thing that never occurred to me, but which was brought up in the article, is how the standards for literacy rise and fall in relation to the needs of the contemporary society. According to Brandt, “the military’s growing reliance on aviation, surveillance tools, and weapons of mass destruction al contributed to a growing treatment of brainpower” (490). With the huge technological boom of our time, it is no wonder why literacy and schooling in general have become more competitive. According to the production imperative, it takes a more literate individual to operate efficiently in today’s fast-paced society.
Another student posed the question: “Does everyone need/should everyone strive for a high/proficient level of literacy?” This question can be answered differently depending on what literacy imperative we choose to believe. First, based on the moral imperative for literacy, the answer to the question would be “yes”. According to Brandt, under this approach, “Knowing how to read was synonymous with knowing what and how to believe. Literacy certified membership in a community of believers” (488). The answer under the production imperative is “yes” and “no”. Obviously, being a better reader and writer can never hurt one in life, but there are also many jobs vital to our society that do not require a high level of literacy. If one doesn’t want to strive for a high level of literacy, they will still be able to work for a living and be fine.
1 comment:
I disagree. I believe that the moral imperative, though overwhelmed by the economic, is still a motivator for learning to read. However, I do not necessarily think that the idea is exactly the same now. The moral imperative dealt with children (and adults) learning to read so that they could read the bible and learn how right/wrong, good/bad behavior. It was also based in the idea that one could save the heathens with the good book as long as one could teach the heathen how to read. What I got out of this is that society dictated literacy. At the time, religion was a huge part of society, so the term moral imperative was built off that idea. Now, religion is not linked with literacy. In fact, most schools shy away from anything religious so as not to offend the any students that may come from a myriad of different religious backgrounds. However, there is still the idea that those that cannot read are somehow lesser or inferior to those that have high levels of literacy, and that is definitely a driving force in today's competitive world. This idea of superiority and inferiority, I believe, is directly connected with Brandt's idea of the 'moral imperative'.
Post a Comment