linguaphiles: Opinion article: A literacy beyond reading'n'writing

Brianna (

pfctdayelise) wrote in

linguaphiles,
@ 2004-12-11 23:05:00

Opinion article: A literacy beyond reading'n'writing
By Hugh Mackay
December 11, 2004
SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/A-literacy-beyond-readingnwriting/2004/12/10/1102625535265.html
if registration required, try http://www.bugmenot.com/

Five quotes:

1. Is it possible that literacy standards are falling because young Australians are growing up in a culture where they can be entertained and informed, and where they can communicate effectively, without having to master any but the most rudimentary literacy skills?
2. "Turn off the TV and read a book" sounds suspiciously like a moral prescription.
3. But why would it be a tragedy if high-order literacy became a skill acquired and nurtured by some, and not others?
4. Why is it "better" to write things down?
5. If we are becoming, once again, an oral culture, shouldn't that be acknowledged?

My opinion is... I'm not convinced that we do live in a world where high-level literacy is no longer required. Aren't jobs tending to require more and more education than ever? Aren't meaningful no-education-required jobs virtually disappeared? I don't know that just because you can watch tv and write on livejournal ;-) without being literate means you can function in society.

[I]n today's media-saturated world [some children] soon realise there are other, more painless ways of acquiring knowledge and exchanging information, such as talking. LOL, I love this. so high-tech!

It's an interesting idea but ultimately I'm not convinced by his thesis that traditional literacy skills are no longer really needed.

Please read the article before responding! And remember to check your pro-reading bias as you contemplate. :-)

(Post a new comment)

	furthermore pfctdayelise 2004-12-11 03:21 pm UTC (link)
	more painless or less painful? I would say the latter but obviously my friend Hugh here does not agree. (Reply to this)

jkrissw
2004-12-11 03:54 pm UTC (link)

I haven't read the article, but want to comment on this point:
5. If we are becoming, once again, an oral culture, shouldn't that be acknowledged?

We are not becoming an "oral culture", if the writer is referring to traditional pre-literate cultures. Such cultures featured trained memory specialists (bards, skalds, etc.) who would retain knowledge for future generations.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	pfctdayelise 2004-12-11 04:16 pm UTC (link)
	well, he is a journalist - not an education specialist, or heaven forbid, a linguist. however even journalists can hold opinions. ;) is what you said true about all cultures that don't have native writing systems? Australian Aboriginal culture? (Reply to this) (Parent)

sunavatar
2004-12-11 04:22 pm UTC (link)

I agree with the disagreement. There is a general perception that Things Are Worse Than Ever that I think is unfounded. If it seems that people are less able to read well, that is only because standards have gone up--Harry Potter vs. Goosebumps, anyone? If math grades are falling, maybe it's because symbolic manipulation ("algebra") has gone from freshman year of college to the eighth grade. A few hundred years ago, families with money sent their children to school for a few years to learn to read and write and figure sums. Just when were people more educated than today?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	kids these days! arimle 2004-12-11 07:22 pm UTC (link)
	yes, I agree with you. (Reply to this) (Parent)

co_lum_bus
2004-12-11 07:45 pm UTC (link)

I disagree 120%. Nobody insists people are less literatate now than they were 200 years ago. TRhe problem is that equally aducated people are less literate. A modern PhD holder, a lawyer or a medical doctor are less well read than they counterparts 100 years ago. This is the statement you want to dispute or agree with, not that less people can read and write now than before the civil war.

Your specific examples are flawed. In which sense have standards gone up? Is Harry Potter a more advanced reading than Mark Twain? Jack London? These were actually children books when I was a kid. How are the Treasury Island or The three Musketeers inferior to Harry Potter? Or even Mary Poppins?

Speaking about math, do you want to say that algebra used to be a college material in the States" I admit I attended elementary school in Russia, not here (but the problem is to all countries in the world). Let me assure yiou that we started algebra in 6th grade, not in 8th (trigonometry was a required course in 9th grade, as far back as 1930-ties, maybe earlier, and 10 years of school was the legal minimum as early as 1970, again, may be earlier).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

biascut
2004-12-11 09:26 pm UTC (link)

A modern PhD holder, a lawyer or a medical doctor are less well read than they counterparts 100 years ago

Honestly, I have no idea how you could compare the two. I'm a PhD candidate, and I can guarantee I've read more twentieth century literature than any PhD candidate 100 years ago. I've almost certainly read more women authors and more non-European literature as well.

Not to mention, of course, the fact that there are exponentially more PhD candidates today than there were 100 years ago, and barely any middle-class women like me at all. If the elite was smaller 100 years ago, again, how can you compare the two?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

co_lum_bus
2004-12-11 10:19 pm UTC (link)

> If the elite was smaller 100 years ago, again, how can you compare the two?

I most definitely can. Since different quantity is a barrier for a comparison? There were less people in general, yet we can, for instance, compare, the nutrion there and now.

> I've almost certainly read more women authors
Please not again. When I speak about literature, I have only one criterion: good and bad. When we shall discuss pornostars, the sex will matter. If you chose to read only authors whose last name starts with A, you may read more of those than I, but it will not will make you better read.

> and more non-European literature as well.
Same here. If you selecty your reading not based on quality, but because you want, rebelliously, abandon your own culture for the sake of being different, this does not characterize you as a profound reader. If you say that there is larger pool of world litereature available to you because of more or better translation, that may be true, or maybe not, if we do not limit ourselves by the US population and include Europe as well. Even if you are right in this limited way, this does not mean that your grandparents did not have enough of excellent European literature to read 25 hours a day.

Finally, your personal example proves nothing. Guaranteed. Just as it does not prove anything if I've read twice more non-European lierature than you did, being one full generation older than you (I can guarantee I have - I promise you two books I've read for every one that you have, unless this is your PhD speciality). In fact, I can probably take you up on women authors, too, albeit not 2:1, and with some 25 year distance, not 100 (that's when I was a PhD candidate).

:)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	biascut 2004-12-11 10:23 pm UTC (link)
	I think we'll have to agree to disagree. (Reply to this) (Parent)

anglaisepaon
2004-12-11 10:40 pm UTC (link)

I have to agree with

biascut. You're comparing apples and oranges. She pointed out that she'd read significantly more and varied types of literature, something any well-read scholar of a hundred years ago would have loved to have accomplished. She also brings up the excellent opinion that scholars today have more access to resources than ever before. Our concept of literacy changes, as our definitions change, with the time. We are more literate now than we have ever been because we have access to more than our post-graduate canidates of 100 years ago could have ever dreamed of.

Furthermore, to dismiss her argument because she presents a valid (and almost universally accepted) point, that literacy options are better now than before because more than half the human race is now benefitting, is most unscholarly.

Before you attack her reasoning, you might look at the fallacies and biases in your own argument, including the rather serious bias that posits national literature is always the best, and to read the literature of another culture is to "abandon" merely for the sake of being different.

	ms_cucumber 2004-12-13 07:04 pm UTC (link)
	I'm a PhD candidate, and I can guarantee I've read more twentieth century literature than any PhD candidate 100 years ago. No kidding. A hundred years ago, the twentieth century pretty much hadn't happened yet. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	ucbear 2004-12-12 12:15 am UTC (link)
	A modern PhD holder, a lawyer or a medical doctor are less well read than they counterparts 100 years ago. Just where did you get this "fact?" (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	co_lum_bus 2004-12-12 06:10 am UTC (link)
	This is what I think. I am open to serious arguments. The arguments that people who've been dead for 50 years cannot be better read than us because we have access to such marvels as Things fall apart and Da Vinci code I cannot accept as serious. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	pfctdayelise 2004-12-12 12:19 am UTC (link)
	that would be an interesting comparison! do you have any at hand? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	co_lum_bus 2004-12-12 06:38 am UTC (link)
	Not at hand, but I read some of regular letters wrritten by regular people, and I was amazed by their eloquency. This would be the same as to compare the Gettisburg address with Bush's speeches. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	random thought issen4 2004-12-13 06:55 am UTC (link)
	I once read an observation that that Star Wars universe doesn't have written literacy (this may have changed with the prequels). So, Australia = a universe far, far away? (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs