She begins by documenting literacy's shift from the moral imperative of the nineteenth century societal hierarchy - - In particular, the role of literacy to provide morally "superior" individuals, suited to sustain the ruling class or power structures preexisting - - to the more "functional" views of literacy in context of the first World War. It is during the first period of conflict and contention we see literacy move towards a "function" label, mainly in terms of soldier comprehension which is imperative to the success of military campaigns. During this time we begin to see the rise in testing literacy cognizance, and the hideous results therein-of.
As we grind back into the gears of war in the 1940's our literacy rates are better, yet still lack compared to our allies (Britain, France, et cetera) and our enemies (Germany, Italy, et cetera). Advancing technologies and the need to stay on top of them marks a new era which Brandt deems the "production imperative" of the modern day, which states: as technologies compete to advance so does our education and understanding of literacy.
Herein lies my issue with Brandt's observations. Are these "phases" not all of the same order? Can the same truth be hiding behind different masks?
The morally "superior" echelons of the nineteenth century were mere patrons of the power structure. The "good" American soldier of WWI; was he not a vehicle of the new American power structure (Wilson, centralized banking [usury], taxation, et cetera)? In WWII we see competing technology, competing companies, the rise of the "production imperative" - - Human Capital for the powers to use.
Mass literacy does not correlate with mass "good" or "betterment". If every person has a hold of something, does it not depreciate in value?
Literacy is not hiding in some bunker or masonic hall. It has friends... maybe not your friends... remember, literacy is selective. ALWAYS.
“Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.”
- Groucho Marx
Brandt shifts her focus at one point to explain Cora Wilson Stewart's role in the bringing literacy to the masses, which does not concern my issue with the reading, but if you are interested in great women of the era (and since we just finished The Narrative of Freddy D) may I suggest a look at Mary Church Terell's speech to the United Women's Club in 1906. (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/marychurchterellcolored.htm)
5 comments:
I agree that the supposed morality argument to increase literacy was merely a faction of the upper class to sustain the current power structure, and we have seen this in most of the readings we've examined so far, especially in Frederick Douglass's narrative and in Graf's discussion of slave literacy.
However, Brandt's mention of the "production imperative," and the notion that with technological advances our understanding of literacy is increased, could definitely be argued. I, personally see the introduction of technology in the modern day with the hopes to increase literacy or change the medium through which it is learned, but with few visible effects/increases to date, because most of the technology being introduced is still in its infancy. I saw this article in the NY Times a few weeks ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/education/18classrooms.html?_r=1
There is a lot of dissenting opinion about replacing teachers with computers, and probably because the education system has consisted of a human teacher-student relationship in the classroom through all of the stages of literacy.
Since literacy is still measured by the students' success on a test, I don't think the opposition to this type computer technology in the classroom will subside until the test scores show it makes a significant difference.
Despite the reading we've had that seem to suggest that mass literacy does not lead to public good, I tend to disagree on numerous grounds. First, while I think that the concept of a "public good" needs to be clarified, especially as we read about the economics of literacy.
A public good, in economic terms, is defined as a good that is both non-exclusive and non-rival. Non-rival means that the consumption of good x by person 1 does not diminish the supply of good x for person 2. Non-exclusive means that anyone has access to the good. An admittedly simplified and common example of a public good is breathable air– there is so much of it that my consumption of air does not limit my neighbors', which makes it non-rival. Likewise, no one is excluded from breathing in air by economic barriers. Thus, it becomes a public good.
Literacy, too, I think qualifies as an economic public good. My reading of this blog does not diminish the consumption of the words for another (thus it is non-rival), and no one is blocked from being able to read (regardless of our views of society and its motives for literacy, I think we can all agree that our contemporary society encourages everyone to learn to read- making literacy a non-exclusive good.) While this all might seem like a squabble over semantics, I think it helps to answer your question "Mass literacy does not correlate with mass "good" or "betterment". If every person has a hold of something, does it not depreciate in value?" This notion that one person's use of a good makes it less valuable or inaccessible to another person is true for private goods, resource goods, and club goods (For more info on all these types of goods, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_%28economics%29#Types_of_goods)
Anyway, because literacy, in my argument, is a public good, it does not become less valuable as literacy rates increase. The standards that define literacy might change, and might even lead to a shortage in demand, but I have a hard time believing that the actual value of literacy diminishes as more people become literate. It's easy for us to say that the secondary interests of literacy development programs, such as maintaining social or religious order, optimizing production variables, and creating a market for literacy testing are questionable in their ethics. When we begin to suggest though, as it seems that Brandt does, that rising literacy rates decrease the value of literacy itself, the next question becomes "Should we teach literacy?"
That question, I hope, will never seriously be asked. Imagine our society if certain members were not even given the chance to learn to read. Their participation in our society would then be severely hindered. While I don't think that Brandt is suggesting anything as radical as this, I would argue that regardless of our motives for achieving literacy, the ability to read and write is so valued and ingrained in our culture that a turn away from valuing those traits would cause chaos and suffering.
I see the bets and raise you!
#1. Modern technology...
In my humble observation the internet is not a substantiating vehicle of literacy...actually, quite the opposite! T.S. Eliot (who Orwell may consider full of lofty bullshit) is no idiot, and had a belief that communication can in fact become so widespread that we actually lose the ability to truly communicate with one another. Here, I apply Eliot's theorem to the Internet: Yes, it is full of communication, and asides from being a wealth of knowledge, most people use it for the spread of jargon (twitter, facebook, et cetera).
#2. The Economics of Literacy???
In the original post I stated that Mass literacy does not correlate with mass "good" or "betterment" this is true. It is, as always, up to the individual to have the initiative to follow through and reap the benefits of literacy. Some people will be happy being cab drivers the rest of their life. The same can be said about the previous statement about technology; here we have and incredible tool of learning and we use it for porn and raising virtual farms!?!?
#3. The Air-suckers
Literacy is a powerful force to wield. Literacy changed Frederick Douglass's life. Martin Luther King used his understanding of literacy to tear down the segregated walls dividing men. White men have used literacy to rob those without understanding of it (Natives of North America and Africa) for generations. Literacy is a loaded gun, and do we just hand them out to everyone (with the exception of America where we do)?
Don't let me catch you sucking that air in too quick or too heavily!
Uncle Evil J,
I'm having a hard time determining whether or not you're being sarcastic. Of course literacy can be used for sinister purposes, such as racial or social subjugation and exploitation, but are you really suggesting that we should choose whom we teach reading and writing skills?
Aside from the logistical difficulty that such a filtering process would require, how can we deny any child access to literacy in a culture that is so rooted in the written word? I guess that's the point I should have been trying to make in my original response. Should we worry about the reasons that literacy rates increase? Isn't it better that more people have access to literacy in a culture where literacy has always been highly valued, yet only widely accessed in the last century? It's easy for us to wax philosophical about the hidden motives and ethics of mass literacy advancement, but that's because we're all obviously highly literate. The specter of illiteracy doesn't haunt us.
A piece of information in the article which I found to be very interesting is that the authors speculate that the literacy levels of the 1870's would have met the demands of the 1970's. I think that this is because of the cultural and economic framework. The moral imperative was one that inspired people to learn, the article mentions that high schools were created because of the high demand for further schooling. As literacy became fueled by a production imperative this demand decreased. Rapidly expanding industries created a system in which families were torn apart by parents working long hours. The children were not given the proper motivation or values and thus schooling became viewed as a burden. In order to re-establish interest and motivation to become literate in children we must instill these values (of literacy as a tool for bettering oneself) once again on all levels, from families to schools to public icons.
Post a Comment