I found these chapters quite interesting, although some of it was over my head. Chapter 1 addressed six assumptions that I think many of us implicitly and perhaps unconsciously have about literacy. I wonder how much of these beliefs are culturally bound. For example, one of the ones Olson discussed is the belief that writing is superior to speech. Olson later says that speech is the primary tool of our mind, and writing is secondary. I think I get what he is saying, but I prefer to think of speech and writing as perhaps serving different purposes. Later Olson discusses how early civilizations used/viewed writing as a mnemonic device, and some of our writing does serve this purpose (such as notes for a speech or a to do list). But I think that other forms of writing, such as research papers and even this type of reflection, force a type of analysis that speech in and of itself does not. I am thinking more deeply and truly seeing what I understand from Olson as I write this. And the writing holds me more accountable than in a discussion where I could choose not to participate or hedge my comments. BUT, back to my comment about these beliefs being culturally bound--in our culture, academic writing is held up as a certain standard, so I think my thoughts about what writing enables me to do are tied up in the cultural value placed on it.
The second chapter addressed the possible relationship between literacy and cognition. I think this is another assumption we make because we are a "literate" society (literate as we define it) and look at all we've come up with. Again, this comes back to a culturally defined concept of literacy and what kinds of thinking are valued. Cultures that are primarily oral are still rational and logical and develop their own formal discourse (such as the maktab literacy Street studied--certain ways of setting up arguments).
I had a harder time with the thoughts on the parallel timing of literacy and classical Greek and Renaissance European revolutions. I do think that rising literacy changed or influenced thought. I believe that what we read does influence our thinking, even today. Some people are even more susceptible to this and believe anything and everything they read. Why would that not have been true hundreds of years ago? I don't think those writing/printing texts necessarily meant for that to happen, although some may have. Also, only a person with some form of power could get text written/printed, thus beginning the transmission of the culture's elite as "the" culture. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree that speech and writing serve different purposes, but they share many purposes too. You bring up a good point about the value placed on written texts...I suppose literate cultures come off as superior and come to think of nonliterate cultures as inferior because the written history we have is the history of literates. The fact that we can read about past cultures' achievements and therefore hold them higher in regard (such as Classical Greece and the Reformation) automatically negates others' equality, simply because we don't have their story.
I agree with you about the way power plays into this. That's why I found it interesting when he stated, "Literacy is functional if one is fortunate enough to obtain such a position [to use it] and not if not" (p. 11). Those with more "power" by cultural standards will need to be literate, where as some jobs do not require an advanced level of literacy. The power game comes into play here. But I agree with your thought process.
Post a Comment