Is Literacy Over-Rated?

Anna Brill

Literacy, in its most "common" definition is the ability to read and write and to do simple arithmetic. At least, this was the definition on the part of most governments until the 1950s (Graff 1987 : p58). UNESCO, Graff goes on to say, defined literacy in further depth saying, "a person is literate who can, with understanding, both read and write a short simple statement on his everyday life". As this quote suggests, there was an attempt in the 1950s to define people as, "functionally literate," i.e. that their abilities would enable them to use their skills both for themselves and for the community. Graff (Graff 1987 : p58) notes, however, that, "nowhere is the key function of functional literacy ever addressed; nor are the implications explored." Literacy may appear easy to define initially, but it proves more problematic when looked at from the angle of an actual definition and method of measurement for statistical purposes and, therefore, I would argue, throws doubt on the statistics of literacy.

For example, a fundamental question which Graff poses (Graff 1987 : p58) is what level of skill does an individual need to be categorised as literate – is the equivalent of a fifth-grade level of literacy (i.e. completion of elementary school) sufficient for us to infer that they are literate? One meaning of the word "literate", according to the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, is "learned", as definitions of literacy appear to be simply imposed, it is impossible to say which definition is "correct" and, so, it is impossible to know if any conclusions that are formed are accurate. Furthermore, governments may be able to assert that their population’s rate of literacy is nil, but this does not necessarily mean that they posses a population of well-informed, enlightened individuals; conforming to UNESCO’s definition the population may only be able to write, "a simple sentence with understanding…". which raises the question ‘do people actually benefit in a concrete way from being literate?’

Likewise, how is "rational thinking" defined? Strictly, I would argue, it was first developed by Aristotle who "invented" the new disciplines of, "syllogism and modern systems of logical inference" (Scribner & Cole 1981 : p7). However, looking at it from a more populist, perspective (and which has the ability to be scientifically assessed) it is possible that it could refer to man’s ability to conduct, for example, abstract thought which may be tested by "sort-resort" puzzles etc… as carried out by Scribner and Cole in their study, which I will discuss further later. Alternatively, however, it could be described in more general terms as an ability to reason logically in everyday life, this is evidently more problematic to quantify, define and measure and so brings in further doubt the covert suggestion that the essay question poses; that it is even possible to measure successfully man’s rational thinking.

There is an assumption made by many social scientists that the rise of alphabetic literacy separated, "’prehistory from history’ (Goody and Watt, 1968), ‘primitive societies from civilised societies’ (Levi-Strauss, in Charbonnier, 1973), ‘modern societies from traditional societies’ (Lerner, 1958)". (cited in Scribner & Cole 1981 : p4) i.e. that literacy formed the bridge between two opposing social orders. That this dichotomy actually exists is questionable – it may be true that History and Logic as disciplines could only emerge after the invention of writing - as only then could records begin to be kept. As Scribner and Cole argue (Scribner & Cole 1981:p 7) statements could only be thoroughly criticised when they were set out one against the other for accurate comparison, and so History did, indeed, emerge from prehistory. However, it is more problematic to argue, as Levi-Strauss did (cited in Goody 1977 : p7) that pre-literate man was "wild" and literate man is "domesticated". He also believed that Neolithic man was "heir of a long scientific tradition" based on their achievements (which suggests rationality may pre-date literacy - as surely scientific thought is rational). However, Levi-Strauss concluded that Neolithic achievement was based on a different sort of inspiration than that of post-renaissance man – or they would have advanced more quickly. We have "modern science" whereas he sees Neolithic man as possessing a different mode of scientific thought.

Goody points out that despite his attempts at maintaining a certain view (i.e. of a certain level of similarity between the groups) his description of these two forms of knowledge as, "wild" and "domesticated" reverts back to former dichotomies of primitive and advanced. It may be useful at this stage to demonstrate the type of language that Levi-Strauss employed (from Goody 1977 : p7):

Domesticated

Wild

References (1962)

"hot"

"cold"

309

modern

Neolithic

24

Science of the abstract

Science of the concrete

3

Scientific thought

Mythical thought

33, 44

Scientific knowledge

Magical thought

33

Engineer (ing)

Bricoleur (-age)

30

Abstract thought

Intuition/imagination/perception

24

Using concepts

Using signs

28

history

Atemporality

Myths and rites

348, 47

321

This appears overly simplistic and crude; as Goody argues, "he [Levi-Strauss] is a victim of the ethnocentric binarism enshrined in our own categories," (Goody 1977 : p8). As members of the western world, it is more convenient for us to believe that those from different countries, or even eras, as Levi-Strauss says are vastly different, "the physical world is approached at opposite ends in the two cases," (Levi-Strauss, 1962 cited in Goody 1977 : p7). I would argue that one possibility is that we, as "modern" people, find it difficult to truly empathise with "their" position, and therefore may imagine "them" to be at the opposing end of a scale in terms of thought in comparison to us. It could be that the distance of time and differing circumstances renders us almost incapable (or certainly makes it very difficult) to conclude certain facts about their lives. As Goody argues (Goody 1977 : p8), in terms of his personal experience in modern, developing countries, a boy brought up as a "bricoleur" (handyman) in a modern, developing country becomes an engineer in later life; he would possibly experience conflicts but they are not so deep as to be, "an overall apposition between wild and domesticated minds, thoughts or approaches."

The effects of the introduction of the Greek alphabet should not be underestimated in the light of these arguments. However, It should be remembered that the differences in behaviour of one civilisation to another should not be judged from our viewpoint as members of the modern, Western world but from a viewpoint such as Goody’s who has experience in working with different cultures and can, at least to a certain extent, see from a detached viewpoint.

Moving from this contentious issue of the "Great Divide", I would like to go on to consider the psychological theories of literacy (as cited in Scribner & Cole 1981 : p8). Vygotsky developed a theory of "higher psychological functions" in the 1920s and 30s, greatly influenced by Marx who believed that Man reinvented his consciousness through his productive activity, i.e. that, "man transforms physical nature with the use of tools, and in the process of tool use he transforms his own nature". Man changes himself as he alters his surroundings. Vygotsky extended this to signs (language, writing, number systems – any abstract representational system created by Man) stating that any change in sign systems caused an alteration in intellectual processes. If being rational is the ability to use abstract concepts such as signs, then man demonstrates his rationality when he writes. However, is this a true example of rational behaviour and can not rational behaviour be observed separate from reading or writing?

Similarly, Olson’s study (1975, 1977, cited in Scibner & Cole 1981 : p11) concluded that being literate helps develop formal reasoning systems. For example, a literate child, Olson argues, would listen to the sentence, "John hit Mary" and would be able to derive, "Mary was hit by John" in a way that pre-literate children would not be able to. However, I would argue that this could also be a result of natural development processes independent from literacy, as a pre-literate, pre-school child is younger than a literate child.

Scribner and Cole were, arguably, in an ideal position (or, rather, as ideal as is possible in our modern age) to investigate the consequences of literacy in their extended study. They tested approximately 1,000 subjects of the Vai people, a small West African group who invented their own system of writing, although many of them had no formal schooling. Scribner and Cole carried out numerous tests such as abstraction (geometric sorting tasks), logic tests, categorisation tests etc… (Scribner & Cole 1981 : p118) on the non-literate, the Vai script mono-literate, the Arabic mono-literate, the Vai-Arabic biliterate and the English schooled. As well as carrying out performance tests, they also conducted in-depth surveys (which allowed the respondent’s answers to be qualitative as well as quantitative i.e. they could give further explanations to answers in their own words) on such demographic characteristics as integration in traditional society, modernity, knowledge of languages etc… (Scribner & Cole 1981 : p50). Their study was extensive, so it is difficult to even summarise their results here, but briefly, they approached the study from the viewpoint that being literate is more than simply knowledge of the techniques of reading and writing but that it requires specific skills for applying this knowledge to specific purposes (Scribner & Cole 1981 : p236). They found that Vai script literacy helped performance moderately for form or numbering sorting geometric figures and it contributed to study recall and language objectivity (Scribner & Cole 1981 : p244) but the results were variable in all categories and so they concluded, "our results are in direct conflict with persistent claims that ‘deep psychological differences’ divide literate and non-literate persons" (Scribner & Cole 1981 : p251). I would argue that the fact that literates performed better at, for example, language objectivity is, perhaps due to their having practised this skill when reading and writing. This is not necessarily an indication of literacy encouraging rational thought but is an example of man’s intellect adapting and learning.

Graff maintains a highly critical stance towards the definitions and formation of the concept of literacy. Far from considering it as essential to rational thought, he argues (from his perspective as an historian) that there exists a "literacy myth" (Graff 1987 : p17) because, according to him, there is no realistic definition of literacy and little attempt to form one or to see it in terms of the sociohistorical context which he argues is essential to an understanding of the idea of literacy. He goes on to say that the belief that literacy is, "an index of the condition of civilisation" is a substitute for a, "deeper-grounded understanding". He cites Walter J. Ong (The Presence of the World, 1970 : p21), suggesting that literacy is over-rated - that it is, "for the most part an enabling rather than a causal factor" in the development of scientific enquiry etc.. (Graff 1977 : p16). He also argues that far from literacy being a tool of liberation, it is used as a "social cement", and that instead of encouraging rational thinking attendance at school (which is the main way people become literate – at least in the Western world) prepares a workforce with, "the conduct, habits behaviour, rhythm and discipline required by the factory". (Graff 1987 : p32). Whether it is still a means of social control today is arguable, but I would tend to agree with his later comment that a country may possess a majority literate population, but that, "neither writing nor printing alone is ‘an agent of change’; their impacts are determined by the manner in which human agency exploits them in a specific setting" (Graff 1987 : p19).

In conclusion, the Greek development of writing and their consequent achievement in developing the fields of logic and history suggests that literacy may be a tool to rational thought accompanied with a rational mind. However, if we consider the early Greek philosophers who undoubtedly were "rational thinkers" but who did not employ writing, it would suggest that literacy is not a precursor for rational thinking but is obviously essential for being able to record these great thinkers’ thoughts!

Furthermore, the entire concept of literacy is questionable. Many governments employed problematic definitions of literacy, bringing into question the very idea, I would argue, that the Western world is as "literate" as we believe. The benefits of literacy, Graff suggests (citing John Galtung, Turning Point) are overstated, if the whole world became literate major changes would not necessarily occur but, "if the world consisted of literate, autonomous, critical, constructive people, capable of putting ideas into action… the world would change", (Graff 1987: p38).

Saying this, I do not wish to underestimate the achievements that have been accomplished through literacy, evidently the fact that I am writing this essay suggests that I personally believe literacy and education (which is only possible in this era and part of the world through literacy) to have the potential to be a positive force in our society. However, it is essential to realise that the concept of rational thought and the definitions of literacy are ambiguous and that in our measurements of literacy, literacy can be present without rational thought and rational thought, if we take a more global and timeless perspective, as I have already suggested, can exist without literacy.

Bibliography

10 March 1998