CHAPTER TWO: Theories and ethnographies of literacy 2.1 Introduction
2.2 What is literacy?
CHAPTER TWO: Theories and ethnographies of literacy
As Levine (1986, p. 22) cautions, “In tackling the problem of a suitable definition of literacy and illiteracy it is important not to start with unrealistic expectations about the possibility of achieving a simple formulation acceptable to all interested parties.” 7 This, in my view, is a realistic observation because any attempt at seeking an acceptable definition of literacy seems to lead to more disagreements reflecting different ideological, theoretical, and disciplinary backgrounds. For example, those in psychology tend to look at literacy as an individual skill, which is the ability to personally read and write. Those in sociology and social linguistics, tend to say that literacy is a social practice embedded in social relationships (Holme, 2004). Those who are interested in community development activity are mostly interested in literacy as a functional skill to perform particular social and economic functions or to initiate radical social and economic transformation in society. These differences relate to different approaches/perspectives to issues of literacy such as, “How people acquire the ability to read and write…, how people actually read and write, how one should think about reading and writing” (Grabill, 2001, p. 17). All these definitions from psychology, sociology, and social linguistics relate to literacy in learning, education, pedagogy and to the conceptions of literacy.
The meaning of literacy also changes according to time, place, and use. These changes make defining literacy a “moving target” to borrow words from Prinsloo and Kell (1997, p. 83). For example, the definition of literacy has been moving from the ability to read and write to literacy as a social practice. New notions of multiple literacies are emerging and gaining acceptance (see Fingeret, 1993). This image of defining literacy as a moving target is well exemplified by the many attempts made by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (henceforth UNESCO) to secure an acceptable and working definition of literacy. From 1946 to 1975, UNESCO made several modifications to existing definitions of literacy to accommodate different interests and concerns that would arise at different periods in the history of major debates in literacy. To date there is still no acceptable definition of literacy in sight (see Beder, 1991; Fingeret, 1993; Lind &
Johnston, 1986, 1990).
Before 1945, not much attention seems to have been given to defining literacy (see Venezky, 1990). In 1946, literacy was defined as the ability to read and write a short simple statement about everyday life. Later on, other aspects like acquiring essential knowledge and skills, which can enable an individual to engage in activities in which literacy were required for functioning in one’s community were added (UNESCO
7 This term is often used to refer to people who fail to meet some minimum level of reading and writing requirements set by an authority e.g. Governments (Glanz, 2003).
definition in Gillette & Ryan, 1983, cited in Lyster, 1992, p. 11). In 1975, another dimension concerning literacy contributing to liberation and development was added to take account of the development of critical consciousness, and ideas about authentic human development and empowerment (Bataille, 1976, cited in Lyster, 1992, p. 11; Lind
& Johnston, 1990, p. 35). UNESCO’s definitions of literacy were generally from the perspective that sees literacy as a skill, specifically a functional skill, required for social and economic development.
In all attempts made to officially define literacy under UNESCO’s efforts, the
preoccupation with what literacy should do, based on the popular ideology of the time, obstructed a clear understanding of what literacy really is (see Lyster, 1992). For example, the addition to the definition of literacy adopted at a meeting held in Persepolis in 1975, shows that one of the primary concerns of the time was literacy for liberation.
Paulo Freire was championing this line of thought about literacy through his ideology of literacy for ‘conscientization’ (Lind & Johnston, 1990; Smith, 1987). This adjustment to accommodate Paulo Freire’s ideas shows how literacy is “a shifting abstract term, impossible to define in isolation of specific time, person, place, and culture. It is therefore described as historically and culturally relative" (Fingeret, 1993, p. 3). The definition or an idea of literacy is always under the dominant thinking and concerns of a particular time.
With this elusive nature of literacy, the search for an acceptable definition of literacy is still an ongoing process. According to Mace (1992), there is an increasing agreement in literacy studies that finding an acceptable definition of literacy is not possible. Welch and Freebody (1993) also argue that such a definition may not even be necessary, because literacy is a complex concept to which the application of different forms of reasoning from different disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, politic, psychology, linguistics, and economics are possible.
Understanding the different definitions of literacy is important because they all have different implications for literacy research, policy, and practice. For example, those who see literacy as a functional skill focus the responsibility for literacy on the individual and not the community of which the individual is a member. Solving the problem of illiteracy in this case could require teaching the individuals how to read and write. Those who see literacy as a social practice see literacy as part of a social practice in a community, and this community determines the literacy requirements of its members. Teaching literacy in this case requires understanding the context within which literacy is being used and using
such information in literacy curriculum development and delivery processes (Gee, 1990;
McKay, 1993). In this case, changing the literacy practices and environment of the entire community could be the focus of the literacy programme (Community Literacy Project Nepal, 2004). These definitions are guided by the main concerns and disciplinary interest pushing themselves for attention at different times since 1946 when collective attention started to be given to the issue of literacy (Lind & Johnston, 1990).
To conclude this section, I use the description of literacy by Shuman, to say that “literacy has become a name for many issues, including the invention of modernity, the invention of history or technology, the representative of education in general, or a name for a privileged domain of culture” (Shuman, 1993, p. 247). All these are ideological orientations that are influencing people’s perceptions of literacy at different times in human history thus generating different models of literacy. Baynham (1995, p. 15) summarises these models as follows:
• skills development model, which looks at literacy as a skill;
• therapeutic model, which sees literacy as a way of working with problems;
• personal empowerment model, which sees the development of literacy as a process of developing confidence and personal power in life;
• social empowerment model, which sees literacy as a process of securing social change
• functional model, which sees literacy as a tool to achieve a particular purpose in a particular social and economic context of life, and
• critical model of literacy, which sees the teaching of literacy as a way of developing critical thinking.
All the different ideological viewpoints struggle to have a stake in understanding literacy from their own viewpoints and purposes. However, in all these differences, there is something to do with reading and writing, as the “core component of literacy” (Holme, 2004, p. 64). This is the only area where there is some agreement.
In this section, I have pointed out that lack of agreement on the exact nature of literacy is the major source of controversy in literacy study because literacy is a multidisciplinary subject that comfortably fits with many divergent theoretical applications. In the next section, I outline some of these theories and proceed to articulate the social practices theory of literacy with its antithetical autonomous model of literacy.