Expanded Literacy Definition/Autobiography
-
This paper is an exploration of my understanding of literacy. By applying my understanding of theory to my own experiences I hope to complicate and illuminate both. My own definition of literacy has evolved through hearing others’ insights and experiences. Most obviously, it has expanded to include communication within any medium, within and outside of text. Dictionary.com gives two definitions for literacy:
1. The condition or quality of being literate, especially the ability to read and write. 2. The condition or quality of being knowledgeable in a particular subject or field: cultural literacy; biblical literacy. Dictionary.com similarly expands the definition of literacy to apply to different contexts, or bodies of knowledge, but still seems to offer a limited definition. It is merely acknowledging a social use of the term literacy to define knowledge, rather than understanding the complexity or significance of valuing contextual knowledge. Being literate in a ‘particular subject or field’ is more than just knowledge in terms of information or facts, but being able to understand meaning and communicate with it and within it. James Gee gives a good example of this in “What Video Games Have to Teach us about Learning and Literacy,” distinguishing between the passive accumulation of content, and active engagement with the text or other communication symbol in order to make and apply meaning. He gives an example of students who know Newton’s laws of motions, but are unable to apply that knowledge. To be literate is not only to know, but to be able to use that knowledge, to make meaning of it and use it to understand the world differently. I would not consider someone literate in English that was merely able to form the correct sounds from printed symbols, even if they were able to reiterate dictionary definitions of every word, if they were unable to make meaning and communicate that meaning in some way. “Knowledge,” then, is not what deserves emphasis in defining literacy, not only in terms of print but in any communicative context. Meaning is essential, and cannot be attained outside of an essentially communicative context. The communicative function of literacy, in fact its sole purpose, is left out of this definition. When one “reads” or makes meaning out of symbols, they are interpreting what another person chooses to communicate. Even if the person is presenting “facts,” they are presenting them in a necessarily biased perspective, emphasizing some and leaving others out. Not only is the presentation of the facts a contextual communication, but “facts” themselves are embedded in context. Gee acknowledges the social and historical context of linguistic theory as an example of all subjects: if different people in history had contributed to the body of knowledge, “it might be equally good now but somewhat different” (Video Games, 29). Understanding that knowledge in a specific field is contextually based acknowledges its communicative role and visa versa. Only by being able to communicate with a meaning of the text already offered can one contribute to and alter the nature of the “facts” within a subject. No physicist will recognize the opinion of one who cannot communicate within the same basic understanding of the way the world works, at least enough to alter the physicist’s understanding of the world in that context. Therefore that person has no influence over that body of knowledge without first immersing herself in that context and taking on the identity of, in this case, a physicist. This limitation of the access to specific knowledge to those that already “believe” in their perspective applies to other less recognized contexts as well. People whose mode of communication does not include aspects that society values have a hard time impacting social values from the outside. This demonstrates Gee’s claim that one always speaks within a certain “discourse,” or a socially accepted association among ways of using language, of thinking, and of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or ‘social network.’(What is Literacy? 51)
To effectively communicate within a certain context, then, requires one to take on a certain persona. The process of becoming literate is much more than acquiring knowledge. It is a personal struggle, not separate from identity formation. The personal perspective and identification opportunities available in “text” are overlooked in most definitions much like the fluidity of the texts themselves. As Nielson puts it, becoming literate is a process of “developing critical awareness and agency in one’s own life through the reading and writing of available signs both in and out of school” (8). The opportunity or lack thereof to identify with an abundance of characters and ways of communicating and to explore possible identities can make a huge impact on one’s healthy identity formation. Paulo Freire acknowledges this extension of the use of literacy, not only explaining that “language and reality are dynamically intertwined,” but also acknowledging the personal engagement involved in that connection: “The texts, the words, the letters of that context were incarnated in a series of things, objects, signs. In perceiving these, I experienced myself, and the more I experienced myself, the more my perceptual capacity increased” (1). Freire and Nielson both bring up the role that literacy plays in forming perception and identity.
-
In an effort to compact these additional aspects of literacy, I can understand literacy in this way: the ability to effectively use a communicative tool (which necessitates the ability to understand meaning from “text”), embedded in a specific context, and which necessarily involves a personal journey/struggle. By defining the process of becoming literate as a personal struggle, we acknowledge the identities people play with and question while “reading” and take on in order to communicate. This is important because we can see the immense importance the possibilities of “texts” play in identity formation, and also the potential for conflicting “discourses,” or conflicting allegiance to “ways of thinking and acting.” Looking at becoming literate as learning how to use a communication tool helps us to acknowledge all literacies and therefore all people as literate, possessing different literacies or modes of communication. By realizing that the process of expanding our definition expands the population that we can define as literate, we acknowledge the current limited access to literacy as traditionally defined, which correlates to a lack of access to power. Currently, not all literacies are recognized or valued. Traditionally conceptualized literacy, or ability to read and write written text, privileges a certain way of communicating. This becomes problematic when one acknowledges the extent to which becoming literate is a personal process of identity formation. When value is limited to a certain way of understanding and communicating meaning, not only are some people disadvantaged who do not easily adopt the expected set of values within that context, but options for identity exploration are limited for everyone. The power potential involved in the process of literacy and the literate identity is ignored in a traditional definition and the implications for that in terms of limitation are huge. Limitations to identity and to agency within society are perpetuated by our limited definition, and it becomes all of our responsibility to explore the interplay between ways of using language and their context in society if we want to expand these limited possibilities. Understanding an expanded definition of literacy is crucial for the students within the learning setting of school, but can also be applied in the essentially learning context of the world. By recognizing different communication tools that students already succeed in, we are supporting and encouraging them. As Christine Leland explains in “Multiple Ways of Knowing,” “When we invite students to use sign systems flexibly in their efforts to make sense of the world, we end up with a list of all the things they can do…Before learners become literate, they must believe themselves to be literate” (114). By acknowledging multiple literacies, and recognizing them as communicative tools, the focus changes from student’s deficiencies to their rich array of skills that can be valued, shared and built on.
Autobiographical Literacy Events: In School: In the junior year of my high school I took a class called World Religions. For every reading assignment we had, we also had to turn in a paper of notes on our communication with the text. We drew a line down the middle of a notebook paper, and on the left side wrote a piece of text and on the right our response. We could pick any point in the text that struck us, and respond to it in any way. I often asked questions or pointed out what seemed to me to be discrepancies between different points, but also wondered how points that were being made related to other things I was thinking about and to the environment the text was written in. This was extremely powerful for me, and a completely different process than I was used to. Before taking the class, I had never been encouraged to engage with non-fictional text in a deliberate way. The more questions I asked the more questions I had. My process of reading the text was different. In contrast to the monotonous battle of attaining memorization of facts, it was exhilarating to really think about what the text was saying, and the influence it had as a religious authority. A crucial aspect of the assignment that contributed to my passion for the class was the positive input I was getting from my teacher. I don’t think her responses to our notes were extensive, and grading did not take up any noticeable role, but she responded in a way that validated, encouraged, and expanded my understanding and engagement with the text.
-
This class and the way she encouraged our engagement with the text were different from anything I had ever experienced, and had a powerful impact on my life. Looking at this experience with an expanded definition of literacy helps me locate the reason for its significance. My teacher acknowledged that there are multiple ways to understand meaning, made me aware of the active role I play as a reader of text, and supported my unique struggle to make meaning. By asking us what we noticed in the text, what we questioned and saw as important, she assumed that we were all thoughtful readers and could bring different perspectives to the text. Unless we didn’t do the work, we could not be wrong. It was a completely different view of education: focusing on what we did know and building on that. Being more aware of my role as a reader, I could explore and acknowledge the way the text influenced me. I was not passively accumulating knowledge, but actively and critically learning. By delving into the religious texts, questioning their origin, validity and how it affected the society of the readers of that text, (things not normally “allowed,” but in this case actually encouraged) I became aware on a deeper level of the bias of text. I did not have to be an “expert” to begin to question the subject matter. This meta-knowledge was useful and applicable in all areas of my learning and life. I learned to be critical and look at all the aspects of “facts,” which has made a difference in my future. It was important for me to grasp the different ways people understand their world. I was able to reflect on how stories effected or were effected by life views, and consequently to realize my own perspective and its place in the scheme of things. When I tell people about this class, the question that seems to always come up is “what did you learn?” I always feel inadequate or at least silly that I can’t remember the content of my learning, the facts of the text, at all. This expanded definition of literacy helps me to pinpoint the importance of my learning, as a personal ongoing process that changes the way I look at the world. However, my appreciation of a different way of understanding learning and knowing is meaningless unless it is valued by others. At a time in the American educational system when content is in the spotlight, this expanded definition seems essential and insignificant at the same time. Unless the world becomes convinced that there is more to literacy and learning, I will continue to be evaluated on the basis of what kind of facts I can regurgitate.
Out of School: Since my younger (by almost 2 years) brother and I were children, we have communicated worlds differently within one context specifically: modern technology. Before he started school he played Nintendo, which I had access to and dabbled in but found I had no interest in. This played a social role in his life even when he was very young. As we grew up he was on the cutting edge of all the new games, and he not only played them with a certain group of friends, but could talk extensively about them with some people. He explored computers at a very young age too, which he played games on and in the process learned to maneuver effectively. From what he tells me now, this early exploration caused by a boyish curiosity made all the difference in his current literacy. His approach now when encountering new technology is exploration. He feels comfortable making mistakes and maneuvering within new contexts. Although I do use a limited amount of technology, my approach and level of understanding is very different. I am like the physics student reaping the benefits of good grades by methodically repeating meaningless directions. But, as the superficiality of grades suggests, my limited understanding does not allow me to communicate within or about technology and I have not gained a new perspective. When something is not working the way I think it should, my illiteracy becomes apparent. I have no tools to maneuver with: I cannot understand what the computer is saying, what the “mistake” represents, and I have no way of communicating to accomplish my goals.
-
This example of literacy is harder to deconstruct because it is farther from the commonly understood definition of literacy. This gives a perfect example of the connection between what Gee calls “semiotic domains,” or “any set of practices that recruits one or more modalities to communicate distinctive types of meaning.” Video games and computers clearly use two distinct ways of communicating, but as the example of my brother shows, being literate in one field can inspire and facilitate literacy in another. Being familiar with video games probably helped him to be more comfortable with computers and visa versa. Being knowledgeable and being able to communicate within and about one context also probably made it easier for my brother to have access to the other context and the community that claims expertise on that content. My brother had what Gee calls “internal and external design grammar.” Internal grammar, to paraphrase Gee, is being able to distinguish the possible content of the domain, while external grammar is the ability to distinguish a member of the domain, depending on how they acted or communicated.
I do not have the ability to maneuver within either contexts: I would not be able to figure out how to use something easily without direct instruction, could not use my knowledge of one piece of technology and apply it to new context, and for the most part I cannot tell if what someone is saying is a correct or a viable thing to say within that context. However, I am still typing this paper on a computer and use technology in many other ways on relatively basic levels. This makes problematic the clear distinction between “literate” and “illiterate.” I am able to use and benefit from technology, but according to my working definition, I would be “illiterate” because I am largely unable to communicate with or about technology. To some extent, at least when referring to access and use of a mode of communication, there is a spectrum, but perhaps access to power is a more apparent distinction. Although I can get around in a world of technology, I do not have power within this context and cannot affect it in any way. This may be useful in understanding other contexts as well. There is certainly a spectrum of traditionally understood literacy to a certain extent. A person who can read Stop signs and sign their name can maneuver within society better than someone who cannot, but cannot communicate with written text and does not have much power in our society that values written language. Communication and power seem to be important distinctions and pieces of the literacy process, but instead of drawing the line of what we define as literacy, which ignores the steps people have made, I think it would be better to value the process and place less emphasis on the final goal. Technology is an important “semiotic domain” because its importance cannot be ignored. Written language is no longer society’s only valued mode of communication, and because of this it seems the definition of literacy will inevitably expand.
