You Say Il·lit·er·ate, I Say Lit·er·ate

Illiterate 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 21^st 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 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,” 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. I won’t lie if I am in a rush I rather just point at a picture in a fast-food joint then read through the option, then read through the ingredients, then finally come to a decision. 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 thinks 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. I can even use myself as an example; I finished Uglies Series by Scott Westerfeld in just 2 weeks. Mind you there are 4 books in the series all over 1000 pages in paperback, and guess what I didn’t lose focus or get bored or any of that nonsense. I may or may not be one of the very few “youngsters” as Sullivan calls us that still love the idea of holding the material I’m reading. On the other hand I am one of those kids who always complains that textbooks need a “CTL-F” button instead of an index. We are simply adapting, not becoming illiterate.

            Literacy is in the eye of the beholder. Only thing Hedges mentions that is remotely accurate is “in our post-literate world, because ideas are inaccessible, there is a need for constant stimulus.” 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.