Heather Bossé

Professor Long

English 556

February 10, 2022

Essays Exploring Theories of Literacies

Essay #1

What we mean and what we say concerning literacy are often two separate ideas.

In the most simplistic terms, literacy is considered the ability to read and write. But does

that define the essence of literacy? To further define the term, we can question what literacy

is professed to do. Literacy allows us to understand information, both practical knowledge

and emotional knowledge. Literacy allows us to communicate our own knowledge and

emotions. Literacy allows us to establish a sense of self and an ideal of the world around

us. Literacy helps us establish a sense of identity as well as place within society. One could

even say that literacy is the lens through which we comprehend the world and conversely,

are comprehended by the world.

Weaving together the texts from Module Three, we find a more complete

philosophy and understanding of literacy. Perhaps we generally think of writing as a tool

for creativity, needed for self-expression and thought. However, Geoffrey Sampson’s

chapter “The Earliest Writing” from his book Writing Systems shows that writing was

developed as a tool for practical needs. He writes “Writing in Sumer was an advanced

technology developed, as new technologies commonly are, to solve pressing material

problems…” (48). He further explores the development of writing as a tool necessitated by

living in an urban community by stating “…that writing is the essential distinguishing

feature of urban life” (47). If writing is a tool of literacy, which is a tool in communication

and understanding, it makes sense that writing would develop first in an urban community

environment for “…administrative purposes, in particular for keeping brief records of such

matters as tax payments or distribution of rations” (47). This concept of literacy goes

beyond the notion of simply reading and writing. In this context of early writing systems,

literacy is a means of existing within a community and navigating that community.

This is further explored in Dennis Baron’s chapter “From Pencils to Pixels: The

Stages of Literacy Technology” featured in the book Passions and Pedagogies and 21st

Century Technologies. He writes: “…writing itself is always first and foremost a

technology, a way of engineering materials in order to accomplish an end.” So writing is

first and foremost, a practicality, a means to more successfully navigate our society. Is it

the only means? No. Technology is ever-evolving and expanding and society must quickly

learn the fluency of new tools. Baron writes “As costs decrease and the technology

becomes better able to mimic more ordinary or familiar communications, a new literacy

spreads across a population. Only then does the technology come into its own, no longer

imitating the previous forms given us by the earlier communications technology but

creating new forms and new possibilities for communication” (1). Using this lens of

analysis, we see that society is a spectrum of literacy with skills continually being acquired

and mastered.

We cannot relegate a person to being ‘illiterate’ simply because they do not have a

mastering of one literacy tool in a toolbox of options. Literacy is constructed of multiple

resources and skills. If society construes an “illiterate” person as being less-than and

ignorant (as seen in the short story “The Verger” by W. Somerset Maugham), why is the
 Bossé 3

Verger so successful despite his inability to read and write? Maugham does a wonderful

job of illustrating the misconceptions, biases, and class-based judgements that accompany

the idea of literacy. While the Verger does an excellent job in his position and has received

no complaints from the previous vicar or parishioners, he is forced to quit his job when the

new vicar learns that he cannot read or write. The vicar says “Understand me, Foreman, I

have no complaint to make against you. You do your work quite satisfactorily; I have the

highest opinion both of your character and of your capacity; but we haven’t the right to

take the risk of some accident that might happen owing to your lamentable ignorance. It’s

a matter of prudence as well as of principle” (3). The story goes on to show that the Verger

not only survives this hardship, but thrives. He becomes a successful entrepreneur with the

help of his wife as his literacy tool. Using his knowledge of symbols, he is able to navigate

the world around him with little impediment to his communication. This short story is an

apt introduction to notion that society is laden with socio-cultural judgements and biases

that are rooted in the notion of ‘illiteracy.’ We relegate people to this category based on

socio-economic class or race, yet do little to understand their perspectives and what literacy

practices they have indeed mastered. The notion of literacy is used as a barrier of power

and privilege. It serves those in power to keep people subjugated on the other side of the

barrier.

Essay #2

Our culture has equated literacy (confined to the notion of writing and reading

systems in English) to a societal barrier. Simply, if one cannot communicate using English,

they are somehow inferior. How could this possibly benefit society as a whole? Why would
 Bossé 4

society benefit from individuals being subjugated and relegated as inferior to the rest of the

system? Why is this not considered a societal crisis paramount to an epidemic? Power.

Deborah Brandt’s article “Sponsors of Literacy” illustrates the intricate dynamics

of Sponsors and the Sponsored. “Sponsors, as we ordinarily think of them, are powerful

figures who bankroll events or smooth the way for initiates. Usually richer, more

knowledgeable, and more entrenched than the sponsored, Sponsors nevertheless enter a

reciprocal relationship with those they underwrite. They lend their resources or credibility

to the sponsored but also stand to gain benefits from their success…” (167). Examining the

idea of literacy’s role in society through the lens of Sponsors, this country’s most

knowledgeable and ‘literate’ people are the governmental figures. These figures are elected

and appointed to be watchguards for society as a whole. Their duty is to uphold the ideals

espoused by the ideologies we love to shout to the rest of the world. Yet, their actions are

counterproductive.

Brandt writes "Sponsors, as I have come to think of them, are any agents, local or

distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, model, as well as recruit, regulate,

suppress, or withhold literacy—and gain advantage by it in some way” (166). If these

sponsors hold the knowledge of the inner workings of our government and country, it is

their duty to impart the ideologies, regardless of native language or literacy skills. Those

considered “sponsored” in our country, represented in the forms of all citizens and people,

those in lower socioeconomic classes as well as recent immigrants, should be nurtured and

understood. Instead, “Sponsors are a tangible reminder that literacy learning throughout

history has always required permission, sanction, assistance, coercion, or, at minimum,

contact with existing trade routes. Sponsors are delivery systems for the economies of
 Bossé 5

literacy, the means by which these forces present themselves to—and through—individual

learners” (Brandt 167). Because of this system, we realize that “[l]iteracy, like land, is a

valued commodity in this economy, a key resource in gaining profit and edge. This value

helps to explain, of course, the lengths people will go to secure literacy for themselves or

their children. But it also explains why the powerful work so persistently to conscript and

ration the powers of literacy” (Brandt 169).

Brian Street encourages further ethnographic study in the fields of literacy studies

to obtain a greater understanding in his article “The New Literacy Studies.” As discussed

in our lecture for Module Four, Street “Argued for an alternative view of literacy that

recognizes that all literacy events (coined by linguistic anthropologist Shirley Brice Heath)

are ideological and discreet and situated in local context. Literacy practices are always

social situated in conventions in thinking what it means to practice literacy in broader

culture and spheres.” Street writes “It is not sufficient, however, to extol simply the

richness and variety of literacy practices made accessible through such ethnographic detail:

we also need bold theoretical models that recognize the central role of power relations in

literacy practices” (430). We need a “…ideological model of literacy that…enables us to

focus on the ways in which the apparent neutrality of literacy practices disguise their

significance for the distribution of power in society and for authority relations: the

acquisition, use, and meanings of different literacies have ideological character that has not

been sufficiently recognized until recently” (430).

Society is only as free as our most oppressed citizen. We are only as strong as the

most vulnerable person. While the issue is multifaceted and infinitely complex, we must

turn to face the system. We must examine the intricacies of power, socioeconomic classes,
 Bossé 6

and race. We must strive to understand the complexities of literacy and learning, asking

ourselves how we are supporting the individual and how we are failing them. We cannot

dismantle a broken system until we understand how it is constructed. Brandt’s analysis of

sponsorship “…forces us to consider not merely how one social group’s literacy practices

may differ from another’s, but how everybody’s literacy practices are operating in

differential economies, which supply different access routes, different degrees of

sponsoring power, and different scales of monetary worth to the practices in use” (172).

This analysis begins by turning away from the individualistic mindset so common in our

country and viewing society as a whole. Paulo Freire advocated this notion with his Critical

Literacy Theory. As discussed in our lecture, Freire believed that those “oppressed in

society first needed help by educators to become aware of the nature of their oppression.

Then, through critical consciousness of their oppression and the means by which they were

oppressed, to strive for liberation and to change society through dialogic approach to

literacy.” This draws upon Marxist ideology. Once we recognize the systems of power and

oppression that take shape in the forms of educational repression, segregation, and

privilege, we can understand how the current system benefits a select few while

simultaneously hurting a majority. A common thread that unites us as citizens of this

country should be: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for all, not a select segment

of the population meeting a specific gender, race, and socioeconomic class. This may only

be achieved through equity, the concept that we don’t all come to the table from the same

set of circumstances. Literacy should set us free: in communication, self-expression,

economies, and our lives.

Essay #3

Transnationalism is defined as the phenomenon of movement of people and cultural

practices across national boundaries. This movement redefines the geographic spaces and

spatial relationships of migrants, facilitating change and evolution in the ways in which

people communicate with one another and understand the world around them.

Transnationalism holds a plethora of research in the fields of literacy studies as much can

be obtained by studying how migrants adapt their existing literacy practices and obtain new

literacy skills. As discussed in our lecture for Module Five, by examining transnationalism

“…scholars can address both gaps in knowledge in order to understand the literacy

practices of those on the move AND how movement shapes and influences local literacy

practices.” Rapidly accelerating globalization has simplified our society and infinitely

complicated our notions of understanding. In order to comprehend the complexities of

literacy practices in the face of transnationalism, scholars must examine the political and

economic forces that facilitated migration, observe the tensions of encountering ideologies,

and question what happens when the definition of ‘local’ is ever-changing. This starts by

examining what counts as literacy within these contexts.

Ken Cruickshank’s article “Literacy in Multilingual Contexts: Change in

Teenagers’ Reading and Writing” illuminates the need to change our view of traditionally

understood literacy. His study examines the literacy practices of four Arabic-speaking

teenagers and their families in Sydney as they navigate a multilingual culture and

community with ever-progressing technologies. He examines what modalities of literacy

is present in the home environment and what tools are used by the family members to

navigate their community as well as school life. Cruickshank writes “A constant theme in
 Bossé 8

the characterization of community literacy practices is that schools and society are

changing, but ethnic communities are static and traditional. Change is seen in economic

terms and as something which is external to the communities and mediated through the

schools” (460). Challenging the ideology that literacy is only taught in school through

instruction, Cruickshank’s article illustrates that literacy practices are as complex as

writing an essay in a second language and as simplified as a teenager assisting her mother

with a grocery list.

The teenagers served as literacy mediators for their families, assisting their

navigation of their community with translations in letter writing, economic errands, and

correspondence from school. Cruickshank writes “The teenagers’ literacy practices in this

account are much more dynamic and complex than recognized in dominant stereotypes.

Global developments in technology are actually having the effect of extending and

diversifying local literacy and language practices. It is not a situation in which minority

literacy and language are struck in a ‘time warp’; nor one in which they are being swamped

by global developments or the majority culture” (470). These literacy practices are often

discounted in the face of traditionally held beliefs of literacy. Cruickshank writes: “In the

schools, the home language and ‘culture’ are given token value but are marginalized as

factors that can interfere with the achievement of students’ social and cognitive potentials”

(460).

Education should come alongside this realization, working in conjunction to honor

and enrich the other components in the biome of literacy. Cruickshank writes “The problem

lies perhaps in the ways home and school literacy practices are constructed, understood

and interpreted. In the case of the four teenagers in this study, there was not general
 Bossé 9

awareness at the institutional level of the nature of family literacy practices…the tendency

in the schools was to hold a homogenized account of the teenagers and their families, as

traditional and as lacking in literacy. In this way the home literacy practices assumed

explanatory value for differential educational outcomes. One effect of this homogenizing

of home literacy would be to set up a barrier between school literacy and home literacy”

(471) This constructed barrier of power and oppression must be challenged and this begins

with society acknowledging the delicate biome in which we reside. This biome is

influenced by numerous sponsors, experiences, events, and tools. Through society (our

family, friends, strangers on the bus, favorite childhood author, films, etc.) we learn how

to navigate social relationships, necessary economic tasks, social norms, and personal

growth in both knowledge and emotional well-being.

“Globalization, Immigration, and Education: The Research Agenda” by Marcelo

Suarez-Orozco further discusses this ideal by examining how immigration interacts with

schooling in an era of globalization. We cannot deny the influence of new communication

technologies or the reality that our ‘local’ community is quickly widening its borders to

mean ‘global’ community. Suarez-Orozco writes “…globalization is the product of new

information and communication technologies that instantaneously connect people,

organizations, and systems across vast distances. In addition to creating and circulating

vast amounts of information and data, these technologies have the promise of freeing

people from the tyranny of space and time. These new technologies are rapidly and

irrevocably changing the nature of work, thought, and the interpersonal patterning of social

relations (Turkle,1997)” (348). This globalization is changing the concept of social identity

and relationship with the community around us. Examining the literacy tools used by
 Bossé 10

immigrants, especially immigrant youth, will facilitate greater understanding of how we

comprehend knowledge and information. “Schooling in the era of globalization, arguably

more than ever before, profoundly shapes the current and future well-being of children, as

well as their chances and opportunities. Children who thrive in schools, immigrant or

otherwise, will be better prepared to penetrate the well-remunerated opportunity structure”

(Suarez-Orozco 345). In order to prepare youth to thrive in this era of globalization and

movement, we must dismantle the traditional ideologies of literacy and communication

and embrace the evolution of what it means to be literate in our society.

Essay #4

Ken Cruickshank’s article “Literacy in Multilingual Contexts: Change in

Teenagers’ Reading and Writing” examines his study of four teenagers and their families

in Sydney. Society postulates that literacy in the home and community is often inferior to

the literacy practices of schools. His study examines the literacy practices of four Arabic-

speaking teenagers and their families as they navigate a multilingual world and culture in

an age of rapidly evolving technologies. He examines what modalities of literacy is present

in the home environment and what tools are used by the family members to navigate their

community as well as school life.

He writes “The picture of teenagers as passive victims of a cultural gap between

their parents and the wider society is based more on popular imagination than on research

evidence. Such a statement ignores the role of children and teenagers as active negotiators

of their languages and cultures (Gregory, 1998; Heath & McLaughlin, 1993)”

(Cruickshank 460). The parents in the families participating in the study are Lebanese

migrants who immigrated to Australia following the civil war in Lebanon in the 1970s.
 Bossé 11

The families all reside in a suburb of Sydney where the communities “…have been a

traditional destination of post-war migrants to Australia” (Cruickshank 461). The findings

in this article are part of the third stage of a much larger study featuring sixty Arabic-

speaking teachers and students where the goal was “…to examine the community literacy

practices in Arabic and English and to explore school literacy practices and teenagers’

experiences of literacy in the local schools” (Cruickshank 461).

A closer examination of four families allows researchers to hone in on the intricate

dynamics and practices within the family units and community. The goal? “What reading

and writing did the teenagers do outside school? All four were seen as ‘non-readers’ by

their teachers and the boys, in particular, as under-achievers” (Cruickshank 461). The

findings are enlightening as they highlight the bias and societal judgements placed on

multilingual migrants and their children. Cruickshank describes an example of literacy with

teenager Suzy Elkheir. He writes “Suzy and Sahar, like most of the teenagers, regularly

acted as literacy mediators between home and school, writing letters for parents, such as

notes explaining school absence for themselves or siblings. In this situation the role of

mediator was one involving conflict. Teachers complained that Suzy intercepted mail home

and mistranslated or destroyed letters meant for Mrs. Elkheir” (468). The realization of this

conflict is simultaneously incongruous and enlightening. Suzy is expected to act as a tool

of literacy for both her parents and her teachers. She is given the responsibility of

facilitating their communication, a responsibility that is somewhat understandable from her

family’s perspective but not acceptable from the school.

While the school simultaneously assigns Suzy as the literacy mediator between the

two realms of school and home, it also fails to see the multilingual literacy practices in
 Bossé 12

which she is engaging. Labeling her as a ‘non-reader’ yet failing to acknowledge the

intelligence and skill necessary to mediate the multilingual community in which she resides

is short-sighted and an apt example of the theory of Discourses discussed by James Gee in

his article “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics.” Gee writes “Very often dominant groups

in a society apply rather constant ‘tests’ of the fluency of the dominant Discourses in which

their power is symbolized. These tests take on two functions: they are tests of ‘natives’ or,

at least, ‘fluent users’ of the Discourse, and they are gates to exclude ‘non-natives’ (people

whose very conflicts with dominant Discourses show they were not, in fact, ‘born’ to

them)” (528). Society uses Suzy’s multilingual skills as a tool to mediate communication

yet accuses her of ‘mistranslating’ notes for her advantage. Society needs Suzy’s skills yet

also labels her as a ‘non-reader,’ a term that is a few steps above ‘illiterate.’ Essentially,

society needs Suzy as a tool but refuses to acknowledge the respect deserved for meeting

that need. Why does society not meet the parents halfway? Why is the burden placed on

Suzy to act as mediator when she receives no respect for her skill? Instead, she is reminded

of her place as an outsider to the system. Gee writes “Discourses are connected with

displays of an identity; failing to fully display an identity is tantamount to announcing you

don’t have that identity, that at best you’re a pretender or a beginner…you don’t have the

identity or social role which is the basis for the existence of the Discourse in the first place”

(529).

Basically, society cannot have it both ways. Our society and education system

needs to realize literacy exists beyond the realms of just reading and writing. As we live in

an age of globalization, migrations, and ever-evolving technologies, we must accept the

literacy changes that are constantly occurring. We need to examine what we consider
 Bossé 13

literacy within our students and acknowledge the intelligence and skill required by

multilingual migrants to navigate our complex system of Sponsors and gatekeepers. Gee

writes “Classroom instruction (in language, composition, study skills, writing, critical

thinking, content-based literacy, or whatever) can lead to meta-knowledge, to seeing how

the Discourses you have already got relate to those you are attempting to acquire, and how

the ones you are trying to acquire relate to self and society. Meta-knowledge is liberation

and power, because it leads to the ability to manipulate, to analyze, to resist while

advancing” (532). Society (and more especially, our education system) has the capability

to change the way our youth view themselves, facilitating a love of the pursuit of

knowledge and understanding within our society. We must break down the barriers of

cultural bias and facilitate within youth the type of individuals our society needs in order

to thrive.
 Bossé 14

Works Cited

Baron, Dennis. “From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies.” Passions

Pedagogies and 21st Century Technologies, Utah State University Press, 1999, p.

15–, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt46nrfk.4.

Brandt, Deborah. “Sponsors of Literacy.” College Composition and Communication, vol.

49, no. 2, National Council of Teachers of English, 1998, pp. 165–85,

https://doi.org/10.2307/358929.

Cruickshank, Ken. “Literacy in Multilingual Contexts: Change in Teenagers’ Reading and

Writing.” Language and Education, vol. 18, no. 6, Taylor & Francis Group, 2004,

pp. 459–73, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780408666895.

Gee, James Paul. “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction.” Journal of

Education (Boston, Mass.), vol. 171, no. 1, Boston University School of Education,

1989, pp. 5–176, https://doi.org/10.1177/002205748917100101.

Sampson, Geoffrey. “The Earliest Writing.” Writing Systems, 1985, pp. 46-61.

Street, Brian. “The New Literacy Studies” Cross-Cultural Approaches to Literacy, 1993,

pp. 1-21.

Suarez-Orozco, M. (2001). "Globalization, immigration, and education: The research

agenda." Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 345–365

“The Verger.” Maugham, W S, John Milne, and Fiona MacVicar. The Verger and Other

Stories. Oxford: Heinemann, 1992. Print.