Harvey Graff's "Literacy Myth" Review

Let me begin by bringing you up to speed on the point of this book. In our society we hold a very high importance on what it means to be literate. The idea is that being literate affects your success and wealth and status in our society. The term “Literacy Myth” comes from Harvey J. Graff in his book, Literacy Myth in which the myth is that literacy translates into economic, social and cultural success. The same ideals we hold in our society. Our idea that success comes from literacy is not true and Graff uses his expertise in the history of literacy to show us that our ways of thinking are actually quite wrong and that literacy is something we use to hold power in our society.

The Literacy Myth was written in 1979, a point I feel forefronts the basis of this book as well as where we have come since the Literacy Myth had been written. To be honest, we have not come far. In fact, this myth is still very much alive and well, even in this digital age we live in. The definition of literacy has changed, but what we do with that power of what it means to be literate is still exactly the same. In fact, Graff does an excellent walk through the history of literacy and the lack of consistency when researching literacy. The book covers excellent topics such as literacy used in society as a moral basis, which also includes its importance in the economy and social order...key components to the importance of literacy in our society, or at least how we view the importance of literacy in society as stated, “...the presumed needs for social learning attracted the attention of many concerned individuals, including those dedicated to the reform of society and the reformation of the masses comprising that society” (25). IN other words, this book is a historical walk-through of our society and how we have used the idea of literacy to continually hold power over those who are “less literate” than others. He gives a break down and walk through of the myth itself.

Some of the best points made are exactly the whole idea behind literacy that, “we have seen, those without the experience of of education and without its badge of literacy, have been perceived as inferior and pathetic, alien to the dominate culture, subversive to social order, unequipped to achieve or produce, and denizens of self-perpetuating cultures of poverty...illiterates are seen as different in attitude and social attributes” (51). With that being said, the book shows both sides of what the literacy myth is how it came about and what truths can be said about it as well as what constitutes literacy as a myth. As stated by M.M. Lewis, “‘Literacy is relative...the level of literacy is the extent to which the individual falls short of the demands of literacy current in his society.’ Conversely, the level of literacy is demanded by society is also relative” (292), a point that I feel aptly points out the flaws surrounding the idea of literacy and how that does, in the end effect a society and those who may be considered “illiterate”.

The book is structured very sound in the sense that it gives a great outline of the history of literacy then goes into how literacy is considered in society, in jobs, in relation to criminal activity as well as a look at both sides using research and studies based on what they knew at the time in literacy. The truth is there isn’t much that has changed in society on the idea of what literacy is and how we react or feel towards those who are not literate. Sure the literacies have changed from paper to screen in a sense, but the myth is still there and still strong. If you imagine it was over 25 years ago that this was written and since then computers have become household staples, the internet was created, and cell phones are in the pocket of just about every single person, at least in America. In America, you would be hard pressed to find a single person or family that doesn’t have some form of digital device that can provide them with an opportunity to become literate in the sense that they have the opportunity to communicate or read communication with some other person. Even with all of this information at fingertips, our definition of literacy changes so frequently that those who may not read Faulkner but can communicate quite aptly are still considered “illiterate”. Our definition of literacy changes frequently, and even though this book was written almost 40 years ago, it still highlights the issues we currently are faced with in a very clear way, the only difference is the type of literacy he mentions.

Based on how much information is in this book and how pertinent it is to teaching reading and writing, I feel like this is a necessary read. Honestly, there have been many things written on this book and about it since, but I think reading this as an original source really lends itself to how important the book and topic really is. I feel this book is a necessary read in and of itself, mostly because I think it is revolutionary in the sense that, they saw a problem, addressed it and yet we are still questioning the same things every day. I would say this book is an excellent choice read for those who have a stigma about being literate or would like to understand more of the history of the literary myth. That and if you read anything else based off this book, it helps to have read it yourself to really get an understanding of any critics or those who praise it.

   Overall, honestly, don’t let the size of this book intimidate you. It is an excellent book that brings up some very important issues. There are pictures included of sample writings and what was considered adequate writing decades ago will almost shake you seeing how far we really have come as a literate society. It also includes great statistics that originally seem overwhelming, but upon reading the book it really puts the information into perspective. This book also opens your eyes to what we do in a society in relation to being illiterate and how, even 35 years later, we are still having the same questions.

It is Literally All the Things...

I keep getting all the readings mixed up so forgive me if this and Fosen's readings cross over. I always intend to blog sooner, but I get overwhelmed with my notes that by the time it comes to blogging, I have no idea what to say and I feel like the blogs I give need to be "correct" but I have no idea what "correct" is because I need to discuss the readings before I can write about them, if that makes any sense at all? I feel like reading and blogging then discussing feels completely backwards to me because I have all these thoughts, but putting them in a blog that is posted for all the class to see makes me feel dumb because I know I probably didn't read the readings right or got a whole different idea from them. Anyway, my current distaste for blogging is purely my own insecurities. I am not sure how last semester I felt I had a really great grasp, but this semester, I feel like I am just not getting the material...I feel like I am purely regurgitating information but not actually utilizing it, if that makes any sense.

Anyway, aside from my random side note, this last weeks readings. The London Group was a dense one for me last semester and I feel like trying to sum it up briefly will not do it justice, but I feel like I have to because it hits education right on the nose. The 10 authors are trying to solve an almost unsolvable problem, but they do really have something with their concept of Multiculturalism where they are trying to optimize education with an understanding of the complex realities of schools and education as a whole. Here at Chico State we talk a lot about multiliteracy which is, “...the multiplicity of communications channels and media, and the increasing saliency of cultural and linguistic diversity” (63).In other words, how can we do all the things? And that is where there are so many issues. How DO we do all the things using all the things for all the people. It is a heavy concept knowing what it is we are trying to achieve and yet knowing all the things we need to achieve it. All things are possible, right?

“A pedagogy of multiliteracies...focuses on the modes of representation much broader than language alone” (64).  This is actually covered in the reading we are doing for Fosen's class, "Made Not Only in Words" and "The Available Means of Persuasion:  Mapping a Theory and Pedagogy   of Multimodal Public Rhetoric". The idea that literacy is more than just words on a page. It is a film, it is a photo, it is a thing that is not just a thing, but a form of literacy, so why do some insist that only pen on paper is considered literacy? Any how can we fix that? Good luck with that answer!

Which then brings us to New Literacy Studies “...the concept of a “continuum” is inadequate because spoken and written activities and products do not in fact line up along a continuum but differ from one another in a complex, multidimensional way both within speech communities and across them” (431).

Take a breath and reread that. I had to. But then when you get it, you nod and go, well, "duh!" But yet, at the same time we end up falling back on what we know, are comfortable with and what we were taught. Or then again, we want to break free of that "continuum" and see the reality of literacy, like in the readings I did in Fosen's class. (Again, all of this has become a big blur, so I hope I am getting it all right). Which, brings us to this, “Literacy can no longer be addressed as a neutral technology (autonomous model)... but is already a social and ideological practice involving fundamental aspects of epistemology, power, and politics: the acquisition of literacy involves challenges to dominant discourse, shifts in what constitutes the agenda of proper literacy, and struggles for power and position” (435).

Which we can go back to our last weeks reading and before hand about the "power" of literacy, etc. The idea that literacy has power, but how are we finding ways to use it. Like in Jim Ridolfo's documentary about free trade. Was his statement via still camera not more impacting than had he written an article? Multiliteracies create a big impact overall for literacy in general. As we have seen in our readings, given the opportunity to use the tools, we should. Literacy is more than just pen and paper...it is all the things

The "Right" to be Literate...?

Amanda's notes were great! I actually had to reread the article because her notes changed the way I read it.

 So, right now I am actually reading, "The Literacy Myth" book and it has been great in helping me look more into our readings, though I also get them confused, so hopefully I am getting this all straight.

BTW, I have been working on this post for 3 days and I keep coming to this. I have notes upon notes, but aside from that, this is what I keep coming to...

"Literacy is a fundamental human right." Why does this stick out to me so much? I have been staring at the notes and the readings and this, this statement screams at me and I have this incredible urge to focus on it. I guess it all comes down to the words, "the right". To have a right would mean that there is a possibility to take it away. You have a right to something, but to have a "right" would also mean that "we can also take that right from you". An opportunity for punishment and power, even when we feel that statement is intended to be good. I feel like "rights" are also considered a "privilege" in America. You cannot take away literacy from someone. Once they are literate, they are literate unless you change what literacy is or aspects to become more literate.

So, to have the human right to be literate would mean that everyone should be given the necessary tools for said literacy. But the issue, as we are seeing in our readings, the issue is not just giving that right, but understanding what it is we are giving. The issue of "uniformity" comes into play and what/whose culture is considered and in doing that, do we then make other cultures feel "less" because their "literary norms" are not what the "whole" consider to be a norm. Then we bring up the power of what literacy both has and what issues it causes in group and community advancements. Is literacy being used for good or evil? And are we being fair? And then we bring up the last point in "Literacy in Three Metaphors", using literacy as a sort of "saving grace" and an opportunity to become cultured. But what kind of culture is it if is only focuses on one culture (old dead white men).

I just have so many questions about this "right" we feel everyone should have. I don't like that word, "right". It seems too easy to take away. It also doesn't take into account that I don;t think it is something that we "give". I think literacy is what we as humans are born with. Yes, I know you are then going to throw in the argument of literacy at what level? Are we talking about books by Faulkner, or communicating through quilts. Are those not all valuable and as a human, are we not born with the need to communicate in some way and do we not always revert back to literacy as a basic need? Can a human, one never given the "right to literacy" then not ever have the chance to succeed? As stated in the reading, "literacy is not a necessity for personal survival" pg 22. So, the "right" then becomes almost unnecessary because we will always have the potential to become literate and a person will become literate if not for a want, but out of sheer necessity.

Ok, and in saying that, we have to ask why literacy is important. Then, after a long convo with Nate, we come back to power. So then literacy is power, which is why we make it a "right" so that we can create the power and the ability to take that power away......?

Just some thoughts.

The Myth of the Myth...is it a myth?

" Rates of literacy in the United States depend on which of the various definitions of literacy is used."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States

"According to a study conducted in late April by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy, 32 million adults in the U.S. can't read. That's 14 percent of the population. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can't read."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/illiteracy-rate_n_3880355.html

"Millions of adults living in the United States struggle with basic literacy skills. Literacy Partners believes that literacy is more than just reading and writing: literacy encompasses technological skills, as well as knowledge of health and personal finances."
http://www.literacypartners.org/literacy-in-america

Thinking Thoughts We Forgot To Think About

Little side note as I feel all of everything from this semester is blending together, but in Fosen’s class we just read Nelson’s “Reading Classrooms as Text”, which I find helpful as a student. It also makes me question if I am reading this classroom right and what we are to blog about. Initially I had the urge to just regurgitate the information, but I feel like sometimes in doing that, I don’t really remember the material than if I find how that reading is applicable to my classrooms or life in general. So, in saying that I will do a bit of both regurgitation and application, though I am still feeling out the dynamic of the class, so not sure what path I am on yet.

So we start with the myth that being literate is the key to being financially and socially successful, but that is not that case. Majority of social inequality stems from, “Class, ethnicity, race, and gender” (Graff, 641). If this is the case than the idea of being successful does not wholly require you to be literate. Though, as we mentioned in class, is there not some form of literacy that needs to be achieved, ie: reading signs, symbols, etc.? Which brings us back to where we started in what do we consider “literacy”. Jonny brought up in class a great point last week when he spoke about his culture and how his culture did not need the same literacy we in our American culture did. They could communicate with stories and spoken words, but his family understood the importance of an “American education” and the need to be “literate” to succeed. His culture has a different view on what success is and how being literate applies. As we see in in “Literacy Myth at Thirty”, it seems to be the culture that makes a person successful, not being literate in the “American” sense..

Case in point is, “Writing “Race” and the Difference it Makes”. There are great points mentioned that literacy has become a tool to oppress others. In using literacy that way, it was an excuse to feel both superior while continuing to make others feel inferior, contributing to the continuing bias of those who were “illiterate” or “incapable” of formal writing. In a way do we not still do that? In no child left behind, it promised to keep everyone on the same page, but if you spoke a second language and your writing was weak, you were not set up for success, but rather “weeded out” for your “illiteracy”. We will always find a way to use literature (not necessarily education, as Dani pointed out in her notes, both have been used to oppress others, but we are using literacy as a separate variable) to benefit those who have already the benefit of being a fluent speaker and writer. Just as we as a society will always use whatever means we can to find superiority.

To continue this argument beyond the reading, as teachers, do we then find ourselves forgetting the legacy of other cultures and pushing things like grammar and well-structured sentences and forget what it is the students are really saying? Do we push so hard for this “literacy” that we forget to look beyond that and look for what is really being said? And in saying that, if we let loose on the grammar and sentence structure, etc, do we lose value in what literacy really is? Or maybe, just maybe, I myself have no idea what literacy is and am reading the readings wrong. That is a total possibility...

Goody and Watt thoughts

Originally I was going to answer the questions presented about the reading, but upon walking around on campus, something in me changed. I saw heads down, looking at phones, arms waving in gestures of acknowledgement or even in making a statement while telling a story. It would be inaccurate to make a statement that without written word we would not be able to record oral stories or gestures. Yes, we have been recording the written word for as long as we had been able to think to put chisel to tablet. But what about a new way of recording...video. Is it possible in so many ways our ways of communications are coming back to full circle. There will always be a need for oral communication, even as it has evolved. But is not like the written word? There will always be miscommunication whether it is an oral or written communication because we all communicate differently aside firm the language itself.

On the idea of words being created orally, written, then discarded from both aspects, that is the beauty of language in itself. The word “dude” was uttered once, either out of context or created on a whim and then it developed into something it never was born to be. Or the idea of markings losing meaning. Yes, they will. As we develop as a society, we will mutate words to work with our continually growing vocabulary do to our continually growing technology and so forth. Language grows and develops with a society as it does with a student or child. They adapt as they need to consider their surroundings and situation. I think that as we communicate orally, we will always continue to have a written word as well because it is in our nature to need to have a way to communicate on as many levels as possible. if we can say a word, we will find a way to write that word. Oral and written vocabulary is synonym in the sense that to have one you will ultimately find the other, whether it be a symbol or a word or a sign for what word. We will always have another way of saying/writing something. The beautiful thing about this then becomes the meaning of the word “literate” and what does “literacy actually mean? Can you be literate in coding, but not be able to read a text book? Can you be literate in oral speaking and yet not know how to read? Is literacy or lack there of really such a thing or is it possible that you can be literate in any means of communication? 

***I feel like my thoughts are all over the place and I apologize. I was trying to apply the reading to what we see every day and the depth in which communication and literacy goes, but it was hard to put that into exact words without rambling...which I feel like I already have.