Chapter 3 of The Elements of Literacy primarily deals with literacy events--community discussions based on and around a particular text--and the various ways they are represented in different cultures. Lindquist and Seitz use several very different and somewhat unorthodox examples of such events and how literacy of the subject can effectively allow for better understanding in such situations.
For example, the film Mean Girls is used to illustrate different social cultures--in this case, high school cliques--and the implications they have on literacy. This is a pretty flimsy example. I was under the impression that ethnographic cultures were based on long-lasting and well-established groups that had deep connections with one another, rather than superficial connections. Sure, I can see how high school cliques form small groups that become segregated from each other--language being one way in which this separation is illustrated--but to call these cliques a "culture", I think, is an exaggeration. How long do these cliques usually last? 2-4 years? Most people abandon these superficial "cultures" by the time they become adults, except for the less socially-adjusted ones. Clinging to the social status that one had while in high school--for better or worse--is, after all, rather unhealthy and indicative of "living in the past." And bear in mind that, while in high school, most people weave in and out of various cliques as they try to develop a sense of self-identity. It's a pretty flimsy "culture."
Along the same lines, the example of the study of how literacy practices in such subcultures can influence authority, performed by Amy Shuman, described a group of girls that collaborated with each other to forge excuse notes and petition for a talent show based on Pink Floyd's "The Wall." One was effective, and one was not. Shuman claims that the difference in the acceptance of these acts was "that school authorities overlooked the excuse notes because they didn't disrupt any power relationships, while the collaborative petition was an effort to legitimately challenge the principal's authority." Shaky logic, if we start looking back and thinking of our own experiences with high school administration. The primary reason that the excuse notes worked while "The Wall" didn't was not because they girls were exceptionally skilled at subversion, but because of either apathy or incompetence on the administration's part. And really, these two forms of subversion--skipping class vs. promoting an anti-establishment/thought control agenda--aren't even in the same ballpark. Of course one was noticed and one wasn't; one is minute and superficial, and one is far larger in scale and, quite frankly, more important. Not the most effective study, and not one that would likely be improved a great deal by the mention of pictures sent via cell phone in the cafeteria, depending on what the pictures depicted.
There also seems to be a great deal of confusion, at least on my part, on what exactly a "text" is. This relates to the current definition of literacy versus the more traditional one (reading and writing). So, if the consensus nowadays is that literacy is any knowledge, anything that can be learned, does that also mean that anything that can be, for lack of a better word, consumed is a text? Lindquist and Seitz use an episode of The Shield as an example of a literacy event when describing the impact that knowledge of narco corridos can have on solving a crime. Many parts of the argument are valid, despite the impression one gets that this section of the book was written while the TV was left on to alleviate boredom. But if this interpretation is valid, then where to we draw the line when considering what is not a literacy event? I overheard a conversation in the library between two young women that enlightened me as to the relationship status and potential sexual promiscuity of one "Jeff," who I gathered was "smokin' hot." Is the conversation a text? If another person in my ethnographic group heard the same conversation, could we then have a literacy event based on this text?
Introducing a makeshift replica of the set of Star Trek as a literacy text is a little dubious, although it did apparently inspire many people to produce other "texts," such as amateur scripts. In this way, it seems, a subset culture (Star Trek fans) created a particular text (replica set of the bridge) based on another text (Star Trek), which inspired even more texts to be produced (amateur scripts) by an even more specific subset culture ("10- to 12-year-old science-fiction geek boys"). In this regard, the theory seems to work. Incidentally, as a side note, I wonder about the connotation of the word "geek" versus the word "nerd." What is the difference between the two? Is one offensive and another widely accepted, even complimentary? That's a discussion for another time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sean, nice post. This new definition of literacy as denoting any skill, competency, ability or know-how one pleases is, to speak rather forthrightly about it, problematic.
ReplyDeleteTo forestall any criticism that I’m in thrall to some wooden literalism, I’m well aware that my own field of rhetoric is largely, though not exclusively, concerned with non-spoken forms of communication and persuasion, a fact belying rhetoric’s etymology (rhema, a spoken word). Rhetoric as a discipline years ago, without leaving its moorings, expanded to include written and visual means of persuasion. And I’m OK with that.
What transpires in this redefinition of literacy, though? There are many, indeed innumerable, learned skills, only two of which are the complementary abilities to read and write. (Littera, letter.) Why then balloon this word to encompass all learned skills? The argumentative warrant is that of analogy: literacy is a skill (taking reading and writing together as one), and other skills can be shown to be like it in several respects. So it is claimed that other learned skills are literacies. That’s fine in a figurative, analogical sense: indeed, it can be a very useful heuristic for thinking about other skills—the human mind, after all, reasons by means of comparison.
But does that merit making a discipline of it? To me, this is where rhetoric and literacy differ in their broader senses. We can usefully isolate and theorize persuasion in spoken, written and visual contexts, and in light of the ubiquity of writing and the new media, we’re right to do so. But theorizing all skills? This goes beyond the purview—and the practical means—of any single discipline. We might as well call all our learning institutions, from the Research 1 to the Vo-Tech schools, “Literacy Programs”!
Why select “literacy” for broadening? One reason: prestige. In a culture where reading and writing are touted as necessary means to success, other kinds of know-how (e.g., working on a car, waiting tables) aren’t as highly prized. The professor commands more respect than the mechanic. (Except for when a carburetor breaks down.) “Literacy,” in other words, has a halo effect where other skills may not. When all other skills are literacies, however, they too can have that same holy glow, the prestige of the word—but not its previous meaning!—now conferred upon any learned skill.
This is not to say that skills—I know this word is a no-no—other than reading and writing are not valuable. Of course they are. We need mechanics, wait staff, textile workers, carpenters and other people who may not read and write in genres anything remotely resembling what we prize here in the language arts; indeed, many of our necessary workers may not read or write at all, but their services are not, on that account, of any less use. (A lot of medical doctors, by the way, don’t read and write in the genres we teach, and they are more widely respected than college professors. [They certainly get paid more.] Why not call cooks “food surgeons”?)
You see the point? This “literacy” thing strikes me as being a lot like Hank Thoreau’s attempt to throw his huge ego over the whole world in Walden. On the face of it, it looks beautiful and expansive, but it’s really centered on the viewer who sees himself in everything. In truly valuing other skills, it might be best to view them on their own terms.
When we speak of “literacies,” then, I think us well-advised to speak of the varied ways in which reading and writing take place: that is a very interesting—and certainly broad enough—area of study. But that might sound too much like “genre studies,” a term which is not as “hot” as it once was, just a few short years ago.
By the way, if I am guilty of tearing down a straw man, I am so unwittingly. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
ReplyDeleteAwesome post. You write what I was thinking while I read the chapter.
ReplyDelete(I could back track into Chapter 2 and pick apart the problems there, but won't. For the most part, the students loved the idea that Socrates was illiterate. I didn't have the heart to tell them he wasn't illiterate, he just wanted everyone else to be, or that his very existance is debatable. I also was a little concerned about a writing class giving an example of the percieved greatest thinker of all time saying writing was a blight on society. But that's a discussion for another post.)
As for this chapter, man. I agree that Mean Girls is not a literacy, and that the authors didn't make the argument stick. Being a bitch, or even having a group of friends who are all amazingly alike in their level of bitch and thus run amuck with bitchness, is not a literacy. I'm thinking maybe a documentary would be a literacy, but yeah, no. I mean, you really need to read or it's just a social study, right?
I really think the 'show it all as literacy then chip it away until they get what literacy means to us' plan is what this Elements of Literacy book is going for- because literacy studies are a bit complex for FYC classes, so it's being boiled down a bit too thin. But isn't it difficult to unlearn something? Especially after you really enjoyed getting the knowledge like these new writers are enjoying it?
So what they essentially are doing here is giving some FYC students a Santa Clause, then pulling off his beard two weeks before Christmas.
"Being a bitch, or even having a group of friends who are all amazingly alike in their level of bitch and thus run amuck with bitchness, is not a literacy." LMAO!! I like the Santa Clause metaphor, btw.
ReplyDeleteSean, I really enjoyed your literary criticism of chapter3:) especially the part about the TV being on. This is a different sort of academic writing than tradition. I do value tradition, Sir Fiddler, but I must say that there is
ReplyDeletesomething to be said for this type of thinking and writing. The bottom line is the majority of my students are saying that they are enjoying writing for the first time since elementary school. While no, it is not that which will get
them an 'A' on a biology or history paper,I do believe it is helping their understanding of writing or literacy (I still don't have this concept as proposed by the authors figured out) At the least, they seem to be thinking about the process rather than extemporaneously regurgitating the pre-digested or calcified ideas of others. I am anticipating that perhaps, if they learn this critical thinking process in respect to their own interests and lives, when the time comes for them to think critically about concepts unrelated to them, then they will.