Before I started this paper I sat down,
checked twitter, tumblr, instagram, Facebook, BlogSpot, and my e-mail. All
which are forms of reading and writing, just not the same as a news article.
The concepts of writing, reading and literacy have encompassed our class for
the last three weeks. These readings have given us a glimpse of what some adult
think of us. Reading how some think we are becoming stupid while others think we
are adapting to our new tech-savy world has made me formulate my own opinion of
reading, writing and literacy. We are in the 21st Century, which
means nothing is easily explained anymore. The new technologies presented to us
have molded us into people who are able to strategically read and write for
beneficial reasons, but also have handicapped the traditional ways of reading
and writing. As for literacy, that is something that can only be defined when
the situation is defined. Before I being my mild rant I will inform you that
all of the articles about literacy that we have read except for Lunsford and Scribner,
have all done a fabulous job at making fun of and us and our “literacy”. But,
the only thing they prove is the fact that the authors have fallen into the
exact same illiterate hole! As I recap the things these people have written it
makes me bitter, and I plan to share my bitterness with you.
First I would like to say that this so
called new technology has not made us illiterate. So Hedges please take a seat
because I will inform you that just because we have evolved past a typewriter
there is no need for you to become so annoyed. This so called state of
“illiteracy” or “semi-literacy” that Hedges brings up is actually not as bad as
he makes it seem. I’m sure at some point or another you have skimmed an
article, looked for the italicized words, or even just read the bold print.
See, this is what new technology has taught you. New technology has taught us
to be subconsciously strategic to find what you need and can use. There is no
need to criticize our inability to focus long enough on a nine-page paper,
specifically Sullivan’s, when all the information we needed to grasp was on
page eight and nine. I believe when Lunsford notes, “But the doomsayers who
tell these stories are turning a blind eye on compelling alternative
narratives,” (Lunsford) she was speaking of people like Hedges and Carr.
There is no doubt that Hedges and Carr
make good points, we are unable to focus because there is too much at once, we
are more reliant on pictures rather then words because it’s faster. Although, what
really ruffles my feathers are the extremes Hedges takes things to,
Images
and slogans are all they understand…they can order from pictures rather than
menus. And those who serve them, also semi-literate or illiterate, punch in
orders on cash registers whose keys are marked with symbols and pictures. They struggle
with the most basic chores of daily life from reading instructions on medicine
bottles to filling out bank forms, car loan documents and unemployment benefit
and insurance papers. (Hedges)
The only thing Hedges makes himself
look like in this part of his article is a complete simpleton; Lunsford notes from
her study “we see students moving with relative ease across levels of style.”
(Lunsford) Last time I checked this took literacy. Even Sullivan, who at times
critics the use of new technology, agrees that new technology “provokes a
querulous, impatient, distracted attitude, a demand for instant, usable
information, that is simply not conducive to opening a novel or a favorite
magazine on the couch” something that Hedges things is bad for us, and Carr
thinks is taking over our brains.
In
any case I will not disagree with some of Carr and Sullivan’s points when it
comes to losing our attention span and traditional ways. When Carr openly
admits, “now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages,”
he admits to falling into the same trap that everyone else is falling into. Becoming
a fast paced person something Scribner defines as “Literacy as Adaption” in her
article Literacy in Three Metaphors. Even
better the fragmented writing of an editor, Sullivan, shows the effects of the
fast paced technology we use. Sullivan who defends blogging as “being alive”
also “realized that the online form rewarded a colloquial, unfinished tone.” And
furthermore expresses that instead of making “everyone” illiterate it “exposed
a hunger and need for traditional writing that, in the age of television’s
dominance, had seemed on the wane,” which can also be said about may things on
the web.
Lunsford
and Scribner explain the evolving nature of literacy, and show why it cannot be
simply explained. Literacy as adaption really captures the concept that “if we
were to consider the level of reading and writing activities carried out in
small and isolated rural communities as the standard,” the definition of
literacy would be skewed. I will hand the floor over to Scribner to rebuttal
Hedges’s earlier point of how we are becoming so illiterate that we must look
at pictures to order food or can’t write a check. Scribner eloquently writes,
“inner city youngsters may have no desire to write letters to each other;
raising one’s reading level by a few grades my not be seen as a magic ticket to
a job; not everyone has a bank account that requires the mastery of unusual
forms.” And as for Carr, Lunsford actually backs up her claims with facts.
Carr, you state, “the more they use the Web, the more they have to fight to
stay focused on long pieces of writing.” But wait Lunsford finds that “rather
than leading to a new illiteracy, these activities [texting, web, social media
etc.] seemed to help them develop a range of repertoire of writing styles,
tones, and formats along with a range of abilities.” Next time before Carr decides
to bash the web and the literate generation that is capable of using it, maybe
he shouldn’t use old men as an example of fighting to stay focused.
The
one thing that not all of the authors except Sullivan go in depth with is the
fact that we are in fact losing traditional ways of reading and writing in the
sense that they are being replaced with a modern version. Like I previously
quoted Sullivan new forms of reading and writing will create a hunger for
traditional ways of reading and writing. There are still people out there even
“youngsters” who like reading a physical book that is printed on paper instead
of online or on their e-book. But at the same time these kids like to be able
to find quick information by skimming. We are simply adapting, not becoming
illiterate.
Literacy
is in the eye of the beholder. I have brushed on this topic previously, but I
must reiterate. There is no defined definition I can give you for literacy or
illiteracy. I can try to formulate one from the five different articles I have
read. But in all honesty, the best I would be able to do is tell you that
literacy is something we use to define a person when in reality literacy is
defined by a situation that can only be defined by that person. So it comes
down to, to each his own. Literacy is something that is in constant motion, something
we adapt to with every new invention, and there is no way for anyone to put a
stamp on it. Literacy is the ability to comprehend the complexity of our
culture and the world around us, without creating narrow-minded judgments of
those who have not caught up.
I
feel that was a fair argument, wouldn’t you say? Carr brings respectable point
to the table and so does Hedges. But in all honestly the defense that they both
use to explain our “illiterate” society are all of men who are in their 50’s. I
believe this would be considered an invalid point. Just because a couple of
your buddies are being to “drift” off while they read, who is to say it is not
age? Lunsford and Scribner understand the complexity of literacy and are able
to expand with factual information of what kind of people we are evolving into.
And Sullivan, he is just caught in the middle, with his blogging and article
writing ways. He understands the evolving nature of new technology and
literacy, but at the same time he sees the decline of tradition forms of
reading and writing because of these technologies.
