Literacy as a State of Grace versus Literacy as Power

I think that Sylvia Scribner thoroughly deconstructs the metaphor, or what I would call the myth, of literacy as a state of grace or salvation. She describes this phenomenon as "the tendency in many societies to endow the literate person with special virtues" (76-7). The problem that I find with this definition, and I agree with Scribner that our society does this, is that in mainstream American society, one is considered "literate" or "well-read" when one is familiar with the literary canon of dead European male writers. Why? Because this is the canon that is dominant in K-12 and even in college education. This Eurocentric view of literacy pushes the literature of the many world cultures to the margins. Not only that, but the idea that "literate and nonliterate individuals presumably are not only in different states of grace but in different stages of intellectual developmentas well" is a strong basis for racist arguments. We already discussed this in the ideas of Ong, but the fact that certain societes function without written language doesn't make them any less "literate" or capable of logical thinking.

Scribner identifies another problem with this metaphor. There is a particular quote which I found very telling: "In the literacy-as-a-state-grace concept, the power and functionality of literacy is not bounded by political or economic parameters but in a sense transcends them; the literate individual's life derives its meaning and significance from intellectual, aesthetic, and spiritual participation in the accumulated creations and knowledge of humankind, made available through the written word" (77). This quote is relevant to the discussion we had last class about whether literacy should serve "personal enrichment." Personal enrichment is important. But in my opinion, literacy as a functional tool and literacy as a means of empowerment are much more important views of literacy. This is especially true if one goes into the field of Education because of a concern for social justice. I think that attaining literacy solely for academic reasons, for the purpose of "being familiar" with a certain canon does nobody any good. I understand the problem that Scribner presents with literacy as power: does literacy really result in social movement participation? According to Scribner, there has been no real evidence of this. But I think that literacy campaigns are still important because being familiar with dominant secondary discourses is empowerment for individuals. An example I have in mind is from this week's reading, "Activist Methodology" by Cushman. Cushman tells the story of Mirena, who wanted Cushman to teach her how to "sound right" so that she could convince a potential landlord to rent out an apartment to her. Both Cushman and Mirena realize that in order for Mirena to be able to "make it," she needs to possess a certain kind of literacy. This story is an example of the way literacy as adaptation and literacy as power can be combined. I think this can also happen in the literacy campaigns of places such as Cuba and Nicaragua. Adults who never knew how to read or write can be taught these basic skills, and this newfound literacy is a tool that individuals can use to defend themselves against wealthy employers and abusive authorities.

In class we also discussed the possibility that empowerment and personal enrichment can happen simultaneously. I completely agree with this and I hope that nobody takes away the idea that I am against the notion of personal enrichment. I think this kind of personal growth can occur when one is working for the education and empowerment of others. For example, we saw this in the example of Cushman and Mirena. Cushman points out that knowledge about the political aspects of trying to rent an apartment could only have been achieved through the sharing of information between Cushman and Mirena. And I also hope that nobody takes away the idea that I am against the enriching qualities of canons studied in fields such as Literature, Art History, Philosophy, etc. I think that the canon of "dead European male writers" can also be used for empowering purposes. For example, when one reads Hard Times by Charles Dickens, not only does one experience the literary value of a writer like Dickens (personal enrichment), but hopefully one also comes away thinking about things such as class struggles, capitalist oppression, and labor organization (adaptation and empowerment).