Is it time to change how we think about literacy? by David E. Favre
Conceptions of literacy evolve over time, often reflecting changes in society and its technology. Twenty-seven years ago in this journal, Sylvia Scribner cautioned us in her 1984 article, “Literacy in three metaphors” to be aware of how our definitions of literacy can impact our perceptions of those individuals in our society who either meet or don’t meet a set minimal standard for literacy. These perceptions, in turn, affect how we construct and implement our education programs.
Recognizing that defining literacy requires situating it within its social context, along with pointing out that it has “neither a static nor a universal essence”, Scribner attempted to broaden our understanding of literacy by introducing a three-part metaphorical framework which challenged more traditional aggregated definitions. The metaphors she provided classified literacy into categories of adaptation, empowerment and self-enhancement. Since this time, society and its technology has continued to change with ever-increasing rapidity. It has now become practical to reexamine the utility of each metaphor and perhaps consider a revision to her taxonomy.
Adaptation
Scribner’s first metaphor of “adaptation” attempted to capture literacy’s functional importance for an individual navigating the complexities of communication within their society. She wanted to emphasize literacy’s “survival or pragmatic value”. Individual societies determine their own standards of what it means to be functionally literate. Often these standards reflect the society’s minimal expected functional literacy competencies for their members. Although used previously in limited settings, the term “functional literacy” was made more commonplace by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in the 1960s (“Oxford Bibliographies Online – Functional Literacy,” n.d.).
More recent attempts to capture functional literacy within the United States have been made by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Their 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (Greenberg, Jin, & White, 2007) separates functional literacy into three scales (prose literacy, document literacy, and quantitative literacy) each having a set of four possible levels (below basic, basic, intermediate, and proficient). This new taxonomy increases the scope of standards beyond simply a minimal expectation for individuals in American society to function competently. However, this attempt to split functional literacy does not encompass enough of the possible universe of behaviors that would adequately represent its adaptive nature. As Scribner suggested, we must consider tomorrow’s requirements when setting our standards for functional literacy today. The critical question is just how are we to capture the rapidly changing dynamic that technological advancement presents for functional literacy by the introduction of new communication mediums and platforms, along with society’s possible decreased reliance on the previous products of its technology?
Empowerment
Literacy’s connection with group or community advancement characterizes its second attributed metaphorical category of “power” given by Scribner. She recognized literacy’s capacity to maintain a group’s power within their society, as well as a potential for marginalized groups gaining literacy to increase their power and capacity to effect changes in their society’s social structure. Literacy’s relationship with social change was conceived as being bidirectional, with well-organized community structures having an increased capacity to improve literacy rates amongst its members, as well as literacy having the potential to facilitate community mobilization. Although improvements in literacy rates have been effected when large mobilizations of people were focused on creating fundamental changes in a society’s social structure, the circumstances are often more complex than simply a unidirectional force pushing a society in a positive direction toward community advancement. For example, Scribner cited China as benefiting from such a large-scale mobilization, but there were also other competing events and forces in China during this time, which negatively affected these efforts. There was resistance from citizens in rural areas wishing to hold onto the traditional educational practices of their local private elementary schools. Additionally, literacy mobilization efforts suffered from a lack of clarity due to arguments between educators, government officials and linguists over conceptions of policy direction (Peterson, 1998).
Today, we are beginning to see a validation of the reciprocal nature of group advancement and literacy that Scribner acknowledged in 1984 but did not see sufficient evidence for at that time. She could not have foreseen the exact nature and extent to which literacy can mobilize people to effect changes within their societies nowadays. Consider the impact on community organization that is now possible within the new realm of literacy in social media. Revolutions against autocratic governments in the Middle East, as a part of the “Arab Spring”, were recently made possible and most likely hastened by groups that have traditionally possessed little power, but now have been empowered by their access to and literacy in new forms of social media.
Effective use of social media has correspondingly allowed traditionally disadvantaged groups to mobilize, not necessarily to overthrow their governments, but simply to have their voices be heard by coordinating their protest activities such as in the contemporary cases of the “Tea Party” and “Occupy Wall Street” movements. Now that we have strong support for the reciprocal relationship between group or community advancement and literacy, we must further expand our conceptualization of Scribner’s empowerment category in her taxonomy of literacy. One possible way to improve our understanding of this metaphor may be simply to segment it to capture its bidirectional nature. Additionally, finding a creative way to scale this category may allow a means to potentially predict the magnitude of this reciprocal relationship.
Self-Enhancement
Scribner’s third metaphor of literacy as a “state of grace” emanates from “the tendency in many societies to endow the literate person with special virtues” and traditional societal values surrounding an importance given to understanding and preserving religious texts. Scribner more extensively elaborated this last metaphor, as she felt that the religious focus of this metaphor’s label was too narrow to capture the broader qualities that she hoped to convey. She stretched her definition of this metaphor to include literacy’s self-enhancement qualities and increased social status afforded to literate individuals. There is some support for literacy, particularly connected with the volume of one’s reading, having enhancing effects on verbal intelligence and declarative knowledge (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998), but attributing any generalized contribution from increased literacy to intellectual development remains largely elusive. Likewise, any arguments for an increased social status given to literate individuals within a community appears to be highly contextual, rooted in local values, and connected to an understanding of the type of literacy possessed by those individuals and its associated enhancement properties.
Conclusions
Use of conceptual metaphors, like the ones Scribner provided, allows us to observe a commonality between what we might initially believe to be two disparate concepts. When we use a metaphor, we explain an abstract concept in terms of a more concrete one. This reconceptualizing of the target concept domain in terms of elements of a source concept domain allows for a deepening or expansion of our understanding of the targeted concept. Lakoff (1993) stated that “the general theory of metaphor is given by characterizing such cross-domain mappings.” Typically, the source domain is more concrete than the abstract nature of the target domain onto which it is mapped thus allowing for a useful decrease in complexity of the target concept. For example: “time is a river” maps elements of the more concrete source domain of a “river” onto the abstract target concept of “time.”
Literacy is a highly abstract concept, which is made even more complex because it possesses “neither a static or universal essence” (Scribner, 1984). Since time and place both exercise influence over what we think of as literacy, our use of metaphors to facilitate its understanding must also be equally dynamic and flexible to adapt to these changes. We must now consider if our current taxonomy of metaphors is still adequate for facilitating our understanding of literacy given our current technological and social conditions.
With all the changes that have occurred in our ability to communicate since Sylvia Scribner’s article first appeared, what new metaphors, if any, should be introduced to further refine and update our understanding of what it means to be literate today? How have new communication devices, media formats and social environments necessitated a need to further expand or reconceptualize our definition of literacy? Would a more fractionalized taxonomy contribute to an improved understanding of the different types and degrees of literacy, or would a generalized taxonomy provide us with a more flexible and meaningful definition? Can literacy ever be characterized as a static concept transcending changes in technology and society, or is it truly a dynamic concept, which must change with ever-increasing frequency? The answers to these questions have important and far-reaching implications for our system of education and society.
References
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What Reading Does for the Mind. American Educator, 22(1-2), 8-15.
Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., & White, S. (2007). National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 2003: Public-Use Data File User’s Guide. NCES 2007-464. National Center for Education Statistics. Available from: ED Pubs. P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Tel: 877-433-7827; Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/help/orderinfo.asp. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED496285
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202-250). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford Bibliographies Online – Functional Literacy. (n.d.). Retrieved November 9, 2011, from http://www.oxfordbibliographiesonline.com/view/document/obo-9780199756797/obo-9780199756797-0032.xml;jsessionid=E3F908123D2E1688A27D26F006768C27
Peterson, G. (1998). The power of words: literacy and revolution in South China, 1949-95. UBC Press.
Scribner, S. (1984). Literacy in three metaphors. American Journal of Education, 93(1), 6-21.
Harnessing Lessons Learned from Supporting Students Experiencing Homelessness During COVID-19: Reimagining More Just and Equitable Schooling Practices Post-Pandemic
Election Series | The Future of Special Education: Addressing the Root of Disproportionate Funding by Erica O. Lee
It is true that our definition of literacy is embryonic in its development as we move into highly technical epoch. As far as adaptation is concerned my level of technological comprehension is neither basic nor intermediate, just a standard level in which I am able to communicate. I believe that age is an aspect that cannot be ignored when discussing adaptation in technological literacy. I have to use my own life as an example. My daughter who I see as an expert in technological communication skills navigates not only the internet but a myriad of computer software programs to complete many a school assignment using a multitude of skills that I have only begun to be exposed to as an adult. I see my level of expertise as being standard. I call upon this twelve year old to help me create scholarly enhanced presentations for upcoming conferences.
Bi-directional would assume that the people in these societies (Asia, Latin America, Middle East, Eastern Europe, Africa, etc.) have access to technology. The internet café is the way the common man connects to the world wide web overseas. Internet cafes with a $1 charge for the first half hour and every hour after that. Where at these cafes the internet connection is honestly beyond slow. Recently, I sat in one in the Middle East, at which, a mother sat next to her daughter crocheting until her clearly malnourished teenager completes a term paper. The mother was present due to the fact that these cafes are not segregated and her child was not be seen unchaperoned, outside of the home in a mixed setting. I wondered out loud what this family was depriving themselves of: milk or meat in order for this girl to complete an assignment at the internet café. The mother, sighed and responded “gas”. This month we will have no gas to turn on the stove in order to cook. That made it unbelievable difficult for me to swallow, for I was their just to check my email. As I walked out I paid for the girl’s internet usage and mine.
You state that, “Effective use of social media has correspondingly allowed traditionally disadvantaged groups to mobilize, not necessarily to overthrow their governments”. In the Middle East we saw the result of social media first hand as it created a wave of revolutions. Yet when the dust settles, and the revolutionaries come to power. The other half of the revolutionaries who were at the forefront of all the demonstrations were denied any access to power. No females were in any part of the governmental structure power as it was fashioned and continues to evolve in Egypt.
Self-enhancement is the attribute that I give to anyone that can do advanced mathematics calculations. They have earned this “state of grace” due to the fact that I and millions of others like myself are unable to complete such tasks using a . As a matter of fact I can no longer help my elementary school child complete basic math assignments due to the fact that they are learning “a new way, mama” to comprehend basic mathematics concepts. The advancements in technology that I struggle to adapt to, the bidirectional nature of society and the self enhancement as an attribute have thrown people like myself who are consistently updating their skills to keep up, back to a Paleolithic Age.
What I found most intriguing in this post is the cognizant level of awareness I was missing in understanding literacy levels around the world. As an ESL instructor, it amazes me how countries claim to such high levels of literacy when, in reality, that is the farthest from the truth.
David, your writing is fantastic and I greatly enjoyed the intellectual stimulus.