· Beth Daniell’s “Narratives of Literacy: Connecting Composition to Culture”
o Daniell writes, “Studies and observations persuaded many in composition that what counts as literacy in a given time and place is determined by social, economic, and political factors rather than by some prior definition” (399).
§ I agree with this statement in that the definition of literacy is constantly changing and evolving. What used to mean “I can read and write” now, in my opinion has changed into “I can read and write this”, whatever this is. For example, a state senator may be highly educated and be what we would consider literate, but he cannot read a text (written in text language) from his child. Does that make him illiterate? The senator can read and write manuscripts, bills, and the like, but he cannot read a text.
· Sylvia Scribner’s “Literacy in Three Metaphors”
o Scribner writes, “Most efforts in definitional determination are based on a conception of literacy as an attribute of individuals; they aim to describe constituents of literacy in terms of individual abilities” (72).
§ I think that defining literacy on an individual basis will be the only way to ever come anywhere near explaining what it means to be literate. Scribner’s three metaphors of literacy (literacy of adaptation, literacy as power, and literacy as a state of grace) all support literacy as an individual achievement, on multiple levels.
· Haas’ “Chapter 1: The Technology Question” in Writing Technologies
o Haas asks, “What is the nature of language made material, what is the nature of writing?” (8)
§ In reading Haas’ piece, I could not stop asking myself, “Which writing technology is more powerful? Which one is more valued?” In our society today, there is always a better, but when it comes to writing, isn’t that a personal choice? Just with personally-defined literacy and audience, isn’t then the hierarchy of writing technologies also personally defined? What does that say about ourselves? What does that about us to others? Should it matter?
· Kathleen Yancey’s “Writing in the 21st Century”
o Yancey writes, “In much of this new composing, we are writing to share, yes; to encourage dialogue, perhaps; but mostly, I think, to participate” (5).
§ My question in response to this statement is, “Participate in what?” What are writers of composition hoping to participate in? I think it goes back to what Yancey mentioned at the beginning of her piece, talking about audience. Who is the audience? Are we actively participating in writing if the audience is our self?
Kelly, I have to say that I really like the clear way you set up a quote and responded to it. I might have to copy this format because it can lend itself to a focused discussion on a given idea.
ReplyDeleteI would like to consider your first two responses. The first example of the old senator and his child illustrates that multiple literacies matter depending on the technology and the context. In your second point, you bring up this idea of individually determined literacy.
With these together, I kept thinking of the threat, or the perception of the threat of complete relativism when judging literacy. I guess that I’m looking at this point with education and curriculums in mind. Don’t we have to make a judgment and put value on one type of literacy over another if we are going to function as social beings?
I’m not trying to sound like a snob, sticking my nose in the air for what the *plebians* consider valuable writing. No, not at all--I would rather read a graphic novel than Joyce's Ulysses any day. However, if we were to let individual tastes dictate the type of literacy prized and taught in our schools, we would have educational anarchy. My language might be a little dramatic, but I hope you get my point.
When I think about this large literacy debate, it goes back to these question: what is the function and what is the structure?