CHAPTER TWO: Theories and ethnographies of literacy 2.1 Introduction
2.5 The ideological model/the social practices theory of literacy
2.5.6 Critiques of the social practices theory of literacy
One area of criticism against the social practices theory of literacy relates to the difficulty of defining literacy. While the traditional definition of literacy is criticised for its concern
with who is literate and what literacy should be for, the social practices definition of literacy is criticised for its silence on that same issue. The model, it is argued, is only preoccupied with the social uses of literacy and ignores the literate reader and reading as a solitary activity (see Gough, 1995). My understanding of this is that, although literacy is a social practice, it involves individual performance (reading or writing) in the social context. Therefore, the identity and role of that individual reader or writer needs to be recognised and acknowledged when analysing literacy in social context.
Geidt (1994) argues that the use of the word ‘practices’ in the social practices theory of literacy opens up the understanding of literacy into an infinite number of possible social contexts that have to be taken into account, because, “If literacy can be any social practice connected to the use of reading and writing or texts, it must include much of the modern world” (p. 7). In his view, the suggestion of plural literacies or literacy practices does not solve the problem of understanding literacy for improving literacy provision. Following his argument, if every activity or context were so distinct that it produced a very distinct literacy practice, then the purpose of literacy as a communicative tool would be lost, because different contexts and time lead to different meanings for texts.
Geidt (1994) argues that the social practices model holds a very pessimistic view of literacy by casting doubts on and rejecting the view that literacy is an enabling factor that leads to development, social and economic mobility, cognitive development, and
civilisation. In doing that, the model seems to downplay the fact that illiteracy “handicaps the ability of people to change and control their lives” (Geidt, 1994, p. 1). By claiming that literacy is a social practice involving the use of social networks and literacy mediators, the model devalues individual literacy or literacy as an important aspect of private personal communication just like oral communication. It also creates a situation of power imbalance between people who are able to read and write and those who are not, in which those who are literate have more power than those who are not.
In the social practices view of literacy, non-literate people are not seen as disadvantaged members of their communities, because they belong to a resource-sharing network to which they too make a contribution that benefits members of their network and community. In this network people contribute different skills as equal members (see Baynham, 1995). It is true that non-literate people are able to obtain support from literate members of their communities. However, according to the findings of Klassen (1991) which were confirmed by this study, the non-literate members of the community do feel disadvantaged and powerless because they view literacy as a valuable aspect of personal
life, and they are not comfortable with depending on other people for all their reading and writing needs. They find such dependency not only inconveniencing but also
embarrassing at times. This shows that literacy is still an important personal skill for which society must take responsibility to ensure that everybody is able to read and write for him or herself. The extreme arguments within the social practices theory of literacy are therefore not a very useful framework for addressing such problems as felt at a personal and individual level.
Gough (1995) challenges the social practices view that literacy is ideological and implicated in power relations in society. He argues that literacy has nothing to do with politics, because the fact that politicians use literacy should not mean that the study and teaching of literacy is political. He argues that although literacy campaigns have been driven by political motives as in Cuba in the 1960s and Nicaragua in the 1980s in which the primers were used to communicate political messages, it should not be taken to mean that literacy is political. He therefore concludes that the issue of literacy research and instruction should not be politicised. In this rendition, Gough has taken a very limited understanding of politics as something that is related to issues of state and governance only. The analysis ignores the other dimensions of politics, which relate to social
relationships involving the sharing of everyday power and authority (Wehmeier & Ashby, 2004; Wordweb, 2005). The social uses of literacy model has implications for power and authority in social relationships (Bartlett, 2003).
Gough (1995) also challenges the idea that literacy is relative, by arguing that text is the same everywhere; it is the way of understanding texts that is relative because it is influenced by the reader’s background knowledge. Gough (1995) based his arguments on the work of Brown (1991, cited in Gough, 1995). Brown argues that cultural relativism, from which literacy relativism seems to draw inspiration, has been seriously challenged by research that reveals that humanity has very similar cultures. Brown’s argument not- withstanding, I agree with Gough’s arguments because distinctions should be made between ‘literacy’, ‘reading and writing’. In this case, literacy should always be seen in its broader sense including making and ascribing meanings to texts, while the productions of (writing) or decoding (reading) texts should constitute the technical aspect of literacy that is uniform in all literacy events. That is, a distinction should be made between the technology and the sociology of literacy. This study is primarily about the sociology of literacy.
Extending the relativism argument above, according to Gee (1990), contexts are not static situations because they are constitutive and co-constructed by the participants who are active in the literacy events unfolding in a particular context. This means that whatever takes place in a particular context will not reoccur because the combination of
participants, their roles, time, and/or place will be different, and likewise the literacy event generated at that particular instance will be different. The literacy events draw their meanings from the created context that brings together both oral and written
communication to solve a problem. Outside of that context of use, the text becomes meaningless or takes a completely different meaning and serves a different purpose.
Literacy users are therefore in a constant process of generating and learning new literacy practices.
This argument of context being constitutive and co-constructed leaves the concept of literacy practices without a theoretical base for understanding literacy and or teaching literacy, because if literacy events cannot show observable consistency then there are no practices to be identified. Moreover, since the concept of ‘literacy practice’ is at the core of the social practices theory of literacy, the theory loses its basis for researching literacy.
This is, of course, an extreme form of analysis because consistencies do exist within broad categories of similar activities that occur in some contexts with a high degree of similarity to permit the identification of social or literacy practice associated with them.
Another challenge to the relativity aspect of the social practices theory of literacy is that it romanticises local literacy in ways that seem to promote the exclusion of marginal groups from learning the dominant literacy practices of the mainstream or dominant groups in society (Street, 1996). The model, Geidt (1994) argues, advocates for keeping the status quo in society. Therefore, like at a personal level, reinforcing non-dominant literacy for non-dominant groups is a way of excluding the non-dominant groups by those who advocate local literacies that are not very relevant to the ruling resources distribution systems in society. According to Geidt (1994), romanticism gives value to local literacy practices that are not useful for modern life. By espousing local literacies, he argues, “The reality of a world where an ability to skilfully handle and create texts enables access to the dominant, technologically powerful, textually structured institutions of society is thus denied. This is an abdication of moral value” (Geidt, 1994, p. 13).
Gough (1995, p. 81) contests the view that literacy is a social activity. He says, “Ordinary reading, in contrast strikes me as one of the most private, unsocial things which people do. …The act of reading, that is, literacy itself, is one of the least social of human
activities”. In his view, social activities must involve other people like in conversation or watching a football game. According to him, it is also possible to separate a reader from the society that gives meaning to their uses of literacy and to assess their literacy skills.
This analysis, of course, ignores the impact of socialisation on people’s understanding of texts and the world around them even when they are alone and far from the society into which they have been socialised (Gee, 1990). It also ignores the fact that the assessment criteria, like those used in schools, are culturally based tools, which may not be good for assessing the literacy practices of a person from other cultural contexts (see Heath, 1983 for this line of argument). This omission weakens the Gough’s (1995) argument for separating a reader and assessing their literacy skills.
The social practices model is challenged for its lack of practical applicability to literacy policy making and pedagogical practices unlike the autonomous model of literacy that has for a long time served as a basis for literacy policy development and pedagogical
practices. The argument by some critics of the social practices theory of literacy like Kim (2003) is that it has failed to come up with a clear, concrete, and systematic procedure that can be used by policy makers and practitioners in the field of literacy education.
Without these practical guidelines for implementing the social practices ideas of literacy in educational contexts, teachers will not be able to implement the social practices view of literacy in teaching literacy (Kim, 2003).
Even though it is possible to implement the social practices view of situated literacy in education, the idea of multiple or varieties of literacy practices or variable literacy as Prinsloo (2005) calls it, will still present some administrative challenges such as resource constraints. For example, teachers would need a lot more time to include the local literacy practices of the community in which their schools are located. Teachers would have to be trained in ethnographic methods of research to enable them to collect information about the different local literacy practices that take place in their students’ communities. The school assessment and examination system and curriculum will need to be de-
standardized and made more flexible to accommodate the many literacy practices that would be taught in the many schools or literacy learning centres in a country. These changes require many resources to implement and a flexible curriculum would be difficult to administer under a centrally control system of education (see Kim, 2003).
The social practices theory is criticised for over-emphasising the influence of local contexts on literacy. Deriving from the argument that literacy is ideological and not neutral, the advocates of the social practices theory of literacy do not take account of the
fact that literacy, for example in Africa, except Ethiopia and the Vai of Liberia, came from outside and it came with its ideology and functions. Furthermore, those who learnt how to read and write only did so in contexts such as formal school and the church, and these were foreign to African cultures. Therefore, it is difficult to talk of local literacy practices since such practices are not originally local. What exist are local appropriations of literacy. These local literacy practices are combinations of the foreign and local ideologies contained in foreign language literacy and the local culture. This may generate hybrid literacy practices, which are neither local nor foreign (see Brandt & Clinton, 2002;
Street, 2003a).
In summary, while the social practices theory of literacy does have some weaknesses or flaws, as pointed out in this section, many of its theoretical proposals are still relevant for literacy research and practice. The most outstanding of these is the recognition of the influence of local contexts on how reading and writing is used in everyday life. This means that the teaching of literacy should take account of this contextual influence. While recognising the influence of local context on literacy, it is also equally important to note that literacy comes with some foreign influence to local contexts.