BEYOND DEFINITION: CENTRAL CONCEPTS
FOR UNDERSTANDING LITERACY
JUDY KALMAN
Abstract – Direct definitions prove deficient for understanding the complexity of lit-eracy. To examine the use of reading and writing, how it is used, and how it isappropriated, this paper looks at literacy in terms of mediation, multiple literacies,context and participation. A main argument is that access to literacy is accomplishedthrough interaction with other readers and writers and the appropriation of discourses.These discussions articulate further considerations that explore the consequences ofliteracy, how it is learned, and the notion of practice. It concludes with a look at some ofthe practical implications of these conceptualizations.
Resume – AU DELA DE LA DEFINITION : CONCEPTS CENTRAUX POURCOMPRENDRE L’ALPHABETISATION – Les definitions directes se montrentinsuffisantes pour la comprehension de la complexite de l’alphabetisation. Afind’examiner l’usage de la lecture et l’ecriture, comment on l’emploie, et comment on sel’approprie, cet article considere l’alphabetisation en termes de mediation, d’alphabe-tisations multiples, de contexte et de participation. Un argument principal est quel’acces a l’alphabetisation se fait par l’interaction avec d’autres personnes lisant etecrivant et par l’appropriation de discours. Ces discussions forment l’articulation deconsiderations ulterieures explorant les consequences de l’alphabetisation et commentelle est apprise, ainsi que la notion de pratique. L’article conclut avec un regard surcertaines des implications pratiques de ces conceptualisations.
Zusammenfassung – JENSEITS DER DEFINITIONEN: GRUNDKONZEPTEZUM VERSTANDNIS DER ALPHABETISIERUNG – Direkte Definitionen habensich als untauglich zum Verstandnis der Komplexitat von Alphabetisierungsprozessenerwiesen. Dieser Artikel untersucht die Aneignung, die Verwendung und den Umgangmit Lese- und Rechtschreibfahigkeiten unter Berucksichtigung von Mediation, multi-pler Alphabetisierung, Kontext und Partizipation. Die Hauptthese ist, dass der Zugangzur Alphabetisierung vor allem durch die Interaktion mit anderen Lesenden undSchreibenden sowie durch die Teilhabe an bestimmten Diskursen erreicht wird. Imweiteren stellt der Artikel Uberlegungen zur Auswirkung der Alphabetisierung, zuDurchfuhrungsweisen und Praxiskonzepten an und schließt mit einem Blick auf diepraktischen Implikationen der vorgestellten Konzepte.
Resumen – MAS ALLA DE LA DEFINICION: CONCEPTOS CENTRALES PARACOMPRENDER LA CAPACIDAD DE LECTOESCRITURA – Esta comprobadoque las definiciones directas no son suficientes para comprender la complejidad de lacapacidad de lectoescritura. Con el fin de examinar el uso de la lectura y la escritura, elmodo en el que se la usa y como ha sido apropiada, este trabajo enfoca la capacidad delectoescritura en terminos de mediacion, multiples alfabetismos, contexto y participa-cion. Uno de los argumentos principales es que el acceso a la lectoescritura se logra
International Review of Education (2008) 54:523–538 � Springer 2008DOI 10.1007/s11159-008-9104-1
mediante la interaccion con otros lectores y escritores y la apropiacion de discursos.Estas discusiones expresan consideraciones adicionales que exploran las consecuenciasde la capacidad de lectoescritura, de su adquisicion y de la nocion de practica. Concluyecon una mirada sobre algunas de las consecuencias practicas de estas conceptualizaci-ones.
Literacy and its consequences
Several authors have pointed out that literacy is hard to define, notingthat direct definitions prove deficient for understanding its complexity(Baynham 1995; Graff 1987; Kalman 1993). In harmony with this line ofthinking, this paper looks at literacy in terms of mediation, multiple litera-cies, context and participation in light of discussions pertaining to the con-sequences of literacy, how it is learned, and the notion of practice. Ratherthan simply comparing different definitions of what it means to know howto read and write, questions are raised about how concepts and issues areused and related. Given the depth and breadth of the field, I have tried toarticulate those ideas that have been the most useful to me in my ownwork rather than present an objective recounting or exhaust the ongoingtheoretical discussions.
It is believed by many researchers and policy makers that literacy is thestarting point of development (Pattison 1982; Street 1984). For centuries(Graff 1987), some have considered reading and writing key for achievingdemocracy, economic growth and stability, social harmony and, mostrecently, competitiveness in world markets. School has been promoted as theinstitution responsible for the education of new readers and writers who,according to this view, will learn the basic skills necessary for entering thework force, vocational or professional training and, eventually, placement inthe job market (Levine 1986).
524 Judy Kalman
Besides employability, there is a long-standing conviction that literacy willpromote personal improvement and enlightenment as well. For example, JohnEaton, the Commissioner of Education in the United Status in 1882 addressedthe members of the Union League Club in New York, pitching for money tofinance public education. He argued in favor of the use of federal funding todevelop public education in the territories, the south, and in some of themajor cities. In his presentation, titled ‘‘Illiteracy and its Social, Political andIndustrial Effects’’, he posited that it was necessary to ‘‘ponder the evil causedby illiteracy’’ and work towards its eradication, noting the following impor-tant effects of knowing how to read (and write): literacy, he said, ‘‘civilizes’’;‘‘insures democracy’’; ‘‘creates prosperity’’; and ‘‘enlightens and dignifies’’.
Another consequence of literacy has centered on the ethical developmentof the individual. Several authors have noted that knowing how to read andwrite is often linked with moral fortitude (Pattison 1982; Stanley 1972).Scribner observed that some societies bestow special virtues upon the literateperson, considering her to be honorable, spiritually enlightened, cultured andin ‘‘a state of grace’’ (Scribner 1988: 77). She further notes that these selfenhancing aspects associated with the ability to read and write are oftengiven a cognitive interpretation, and it is assumed that both concrete think-ing and learning difficulties are attributable to illiteracy. Literacy – definedsimply as the basic activities of decoding print – has been related to height-ened moral and intellectual categories (Graff 2008).
While it was assumed that knowing how to read and write were synony-mous with all of the above, only recently have educators and researcherscentered their attention on what reading and writing means or to how for-mal education processes facilitate or hinder learning. At different times inhistory a literate person has been defined as someone being able to:
1. sign his/her name2. read/write a simple sentence describing his/her daily activities3. read and write, by his/her self-report (not based on a test)4. pass a written reading comprehension test at a level comparable to that
achieved by an average 4th grade student5. engage in all those activities in which literacy is required for effective
functioning in his/her community.1
These characterizations of being literate are centered on the most rudi-mentary aspects related to reading, writing and basic education. In somepolicy documents, the emphasis on literacy as an individual trait and as apanacea for social ‘‘ills’’ has given way to a recognition of its social dimen-sions and its limitations as an independent catalyst for development andchange (Torres 2000). However, a longstanding version of literacy as a trans-formational force for cognitive, economic, and social development continuescurrent in international and national documents. This view of literacy iswhat Street (1984) has called an autonomous model of literacy, a paradigm
525Beyond Definition
that conceives literacy as an independent variable, with context-free transfor-mative effects.
Two recent definitions illustrate some of the many assumptions underlyingliteracy that resonate with the above. The first one is from Bolivia and thesecond one from Brazil. Both are included in a recent international literacypolicy document (OEI 2007–2012).
1. ‘‘Literacy is understood as the theoretical and practical knowledge thatallow for sufficient mastery of reading and arithmetic and their use forone’s further development.’’
2. ‘‘Literacy is understood to be the first step towards returning to schoolfor young people and adults.’’
Several important premises are implicit in the first definition: it assumesthat literacy is an individual accomplishment and a first step for furtherlearning. The first definition supposes that reading and writing are to bemastered; without specifying what this might mean or involve. The secondone clearly links literacy with schooling, assuming that reading and writingis the path back to formal education for under schooled youth and adults. Apossible interpretation of this statement is that literacy (understood here aslearning the most rudimentary aspects of reading and writing) is a basic pre-requisite type of knowledge to be further developed at school.
Pattison (1982) summarizes both the economic and moral consequencesattributed to literacy discussed above with what he calls a ‘‘dogma character-ized by four axioms:
1. Literacy is equivalent to skill in reading and writing2. Individuals who are literate by this standard are more cultured or civilized
than those who are not3. That the skills of reading and writing should be propagated among poor
people as a first step in their economic and social development4. That skills of reading and writing should be preserved and expanded at
home as a chief means of protecting democracy, moral values, andrational thought’’ (vi).
Socio-cultural paradigms offer a different perspective for studying andunderstanding written language use. According to this view, reading andwriting are not free standing skills to be applied to different tasks, and forthis reason authors such as Barton (1994, 1998), Brandt (2002), Gee (1996),Street (2003), and others argue that literacy is more than the mastery of themost basic components of reading and writing. Brian Street (1984) pointsout that literacy cannot be autonomous or independent from socio politicalcontexts and is always ideological. He theorizes that reading and writing is amosaic of diverse practices that are situated in specific events and related tolarger social configurations. Reading and writing have social and individualconsequences and their outcomes are closely related to the situatedness of
526 Judy Kalman
their use and are not strictly inherent to text genre or formal aspects ofwritten language. The results of specific literacy events are embedded insocial relations, in how reading and writing fit into the language life ofdifferent social actors, and immersed in beliefs about how the social worldworks. Being literate, in this paradigm, refers to the ability to use writtenlanguage to participate in the social world. Becoming literate involves lean-ing how to manipulate and create with written language – text genres, mean-ings, discourses, words and letters – in a calculated and intentional way inorder to participate in culturally valued events and as a means for relatingwith others (Dyson 1997).
From this perspective, the characterization of literacy as the process oflearning letters and sounds and post literacy as the development of so calledcomplex skills and abilities considered necessary for the job market is tied toan idealized economic structure that does not correspond to today’s worldeconomies (Gee et al. 1996). While these notions still thrive in many policiesand programs,2 some organizers of informal education programs associateliteracy with a more complex notion taken from Paulo Freire’s theories ofconsciousness raising and orient their efforts towards building a moresocially and politically aware population (Freire 1970).
During the 1980s and 1990s discussions about what literacy is, how it isaccomplished and how it is learned is a principal concern of researchers. Astrong debate centered on the relationship between oral and written lan-guage, the nature of skills, the role of context in literacy, the role of talk inreading and writing, among others. A series of definitions of literacy that gobeyond the basic skills of reading and writing emerged, as a way of includ-ing not only the processing or production of written language but the talkthat surrounds the use of writing as well (Heath 1983). Some attempts tobroaden the notions of literacy include oral language practices that make useof literacy related abilities such as abstract thinking without the presence ofwriting (Gee 1988). Concerned that our definitions do not forget the writtenlanguage component of literacy, Farr (1994) argued for what she called a‘‘linguistic notion of literacy’’ encompassing ‘‘knowledge and use of the writ-ing system’’ (p. 15). While this is a helpful working definition, the centralchallenge remains to be understanding the nature of ‘‘knowledge and use’’,and how they relate to each other, to communicative purpose, and contexts.
Following Street (1993) and Barton (1998), I have written elsewhere thatethnographic research has shown that differences in the uses of literacy exist;differences that are due to the insertion of literacy in complex contexts andsocial relationships, to what people pursue in choosing to read or write, toreaders’ and writers’ position to others, and the ideas and meanings thatguide their participation. The concept of written language practice contem-plates the social uses of reading and writing (the skills, technology andknowledge necessary for reading and writing) as well as the ideas peoplehave about their practices (Ferdman 1994). It has also squarely situates writ-ten culture in institutional settings, organizations and the power relations
527Beyond Definition
that determines who reads and writes, what they read and write, who makesthese decisions, who establishes the conventions that govern written languageand who exercises power through written language (Brandt and Clinton2002; Street 2003).
A simple (and, at the same time very complex) example of asymmetricalpower relations can be found in the selection of language use that is consid-ered ‘‘appropriate’’ for school curriculum. The preference for the dominantliteracies of the western tradition – classical literature, essays, standardlanguage uses and spellings – over local or vernacular uses of literacy –cultural manifestations such as rap, abbreviations used in instantaneous textmessages, or textual hybrids – implicitly determine what ‘‘counts as literacy’’(Gallego and Hollingsworth 2000).
Sociolinguists offer substantial elements for understanding how readingand writing are accomplished in the context of social interaction and beyond(Duranti and Goodwin 1992; Gumperz 1984, 1986). They define context interms of the situation of use, the interactive dynamics that occur amongparticipants within a given communicative event. Talk is theorized andunderstood in terms of its location of contexts and specific situations, a mainpoint being that communicative events take place in spaces charged withsocial and cultural meanings. Speakers or reader/writers bring their worldview, language practices, history, and experience with the other participantsto a given situation. Gumperz (1984, 1986) posits that context is the intersec-tion of specific situated interaction dynamics with relevant social, historical,cultural and economic processes.
Others have contributed to the notion of context by associating it withthe concept of participation and the different ways of intervening in a givencircumstance, particularly in situations where learning takes place (Lave andWenger 1991; Rogoff 1990). These two theoretical constructs, context andparticipation, are suggestive conceptual tools for understanding literacy, howit is used and learned, and how language practices connect specific encoun-ters with wider social configurations.
The following example, from my own research, illustrates how situatedpractice is connected to broader contexts (Kalman 2004, 2005). In a commu-nity literacy study, I observed an exchange between two participants in alocal sewing workshop. The instructor asked a neighbor, Gudelia, to helpher fill out a form so that she could get paid. The problem the instructorhad was that the form had a line where she was supposed to fill in her taxidentification number, the Registro federal de contribuyentes (RFC) and shedid not have one.
Strictly speaking, the RFC is an official number that is assigned to the taxpayer by the federal tributary system. The alpha-numeric series used to com-pose it were common knowledge for many: the first four spaces were derivedfrom the taxpayer’s paternal last name, maternal last name and given name,followed by the date of birth. Gudelia knew this, she went back to the firstlines, looked at the instructor’s name and date of birth and composed a
528 Judy Kalman
number for her to use as an RFC. She told the instructor she could use thatnumber but when she had a chance, it would be a good idea to go to theHacienda (the internal revenue service) and have them officially assign her anumber. But for the meantime, they considered that the made up numbercould meet the requirement for filling out the form and the instructor couldget paid. Through this specific, local, face to face interaction, the instructorhad access to at least two types of information: first, what a registro federalde contribuyentes number is and how it is composed and second, what officeto go to in order to get an official one. This knowledge connects the immedi-ate exchange to official institutional spaces, laws, and procedures. Shealso got a solution to her immediate problem without entering into thedynamics of the bureaucracy, which would surely have held up her paycheck(pp. 64–65).
Becoming literate: the issue of access
In recent years, researchers have raised questions about what gives individu-als and communities access to literacy. In the education discourse in Mexicoand other countries in Latin America, coverage has been a major issue: from1960 to 1990, for example, Mexico’s main educational policy was centeredon ways to expand the school system, insisting on the importance of givingchildren ‘‘access’’ to education. In this context, access meant making a seatin a classroom available to every child and getting children to enroll inschool and stay there throughout the six years of primary instruction. Onlyin 1993 did Mexico make nine years of basic education mandatory; currentlythe national average of schooling is just above a seventh grade education.
Others (Baker 2004; Warschauer 2002) have argued that the notion ofaccess should be oriented towards identifying the different processes involvedin education, constructing formal knowledge, and becoming literate. Onecommon denominator of these analyses is the concern for rescaling thesocial dimensions necessary for learning as a way of highlighting interactiveprocesses and deemphasizing the material ones. David Baker (2004) haspointed out that in policy discourse access refers to ‘‘provision of equalopportunities’’ (p. 5) with little or no mention of what occurs in the class-room ‘‘that seem to privilege some learners rather than others’’.
Baker’s focus on the aspects of classroom exchanges underlines the inter-active processes involved in learning in a classroom: the display of knowl-edge, the exploration of its use and purpose, the construction of meaning forimmediate contexts and its relevance for other situations. These same proc-esses are also present in contexts out of school, the main difference is that ineveryday contexts these processes are part of situated practice rather thanorchestrated by a teacher. However, in situations of apprenticeship, the moreexpert participant may purposely demonstrate different practices and knowhow for an apprentice (Lave and Wenger 1991).
529Beyond Definition
Warschauer has written a thought provoking analysis of the notion ofaccess, by relating this term to new information and communication technol-ogies (ICT) and literacy. He notes that the idea of access is often limited tothe possession of technological devices, basically the ownership of a compu-ter. He argues for a more complex notion of access, stressing the importanceof social contexts of practice and the shifts in the use of technology depend-ing on historical, political and sociocultural conditions. He recognizes thatwhile the presence of material artifacts is necessary, it alone does not lead totechnological competence.
The perspective shared by the above theoretical discussions is the empha-sis on social interaction rather than material conditions. Warschauer con-nects his discussion to the current debates on literacy, noting the importantparallels between the digital divide (the presence or absence of computertechnology) and Goody and Watt’s literacy divide of the sixties (the presenceor absence of reading and writing). Like the other authors, he recognizes theimportance of material availability of literacy but defines access in terms ofsocial interaction, discourse practices and use (Goody and Watt 1968)
In discussions about literacy, the importance of the specific contextswhere reading and writing take place have been a topic of research and dis-cussion for several decades. Scribner and Cole’s 1981 classic study of the Vaiis a case in point. Through studying a trilingual tri-literate community andthe use of reading and writing in different contexts (English at school,Arabic at the mosque, and vernacular written Vai in the community), theywere able to tease out what was learned from becoming literate and whatwas learned from the different social processes involved: formal schooling,religious worship and collaboration between neighbors. They present con-vincing evidence to support the premise that in the process of appropriatingliteracy, the social relationships and processes are simultaneously learned.
Brandt’s (1998) study of literacy sponsors portrays how newcomers towritten language use interact with more experienced readers and writers forlearning specific uses and meanings of literacy (Brandt 1998). Mediators areparticularly important social actors for literacy learning and use in commu-nity settings. They provide a needed service for others; they serve as spon-sors not only for reading or writing a specific document but also fornavigating different contexts where literacy is used. They may have someschooling, but more important is their accumulated knowledge regardingspecific literacy practices: letter writing, interactions with official agencies,accounting, and experience with discourses and their interpretation.
Community members may have only very specific needs for reading andwriting. Their uses of written language may be circumscribed and locallysituated (signing report cards, check-in at health center, signing a marriagecertificate). They may have to shape or adjust conventional practices to solvespecific situations as one woman did, asking a friend to sign a report cardfor her, despite the social assumption that a signature is of one’s own hand(Kalman 2003). This is why practices are context sensitive, and adjusted to
530 Judy Kalman
the demands of specific literacy events. In situations where people encounterthe need to read and write, mediators help them cross contexts and discourselines to construct the literacy practices necessary to fulfill social requirementsor satisfy emerging needs for interpreting or producing writing. The partici-pation of mediators may be as precise as providing specific information forwritten language use and/or encouragement, helping another fill out a formor reading a personal letter out loud, or they may become so involved withtheir reading and writing partner that they write letters or other documentsfor them, they accompany them to official agencies, schools or other placeswhere the use of literacy takes place, helping their partner resolve whateverissue they may be.
In my own work (Kalman 2005), I have distinguished access from availa-bility, using the notion of availability to signal the material aspects of liter-acy (the physical presence of print materials, digital technologies, socialinfrastructure for reading and writing such as post offices, libraries, book-stores, newsstands, cybercafes, etc.) and access to discuss the social condi-tions necessary for literacy learning. I have written elsewhere (Kalman 1993,2003, 2004) that access involves the opportunity to take part in meaningfuland authentic events where reading and writing are essential for participa-tion, and the opportunity to interact with other readers and writers. Duringmy work with women in a community in the process of transition from ruralto urban life, I found that creating the opportunity for them to read andwrite with a very literate other had an important effect on their interest inliteracy. We spent a lot of time getting to know and trust each other.
This approach privileges the relationship of readers and writers withothers around text over the direct relationship between individuals andwritten language. Evidently individuals relate to texts through reading andwriting, but their knowledge and competence for understanding, interpreting,and producing text is mediated by others. Learning to do so is influenced byhow they position themselves to the text and the other participants involved.Readers and writers become independent written language users as a resultof their contact with others, through co constructing knowledge and knowhow together, not just from individually ‘processing’ written text.
Conceptualizing collective literacy practice in terms of mediation providesa frame for analyzing how mediators and literacy partners spend timetogether, examine written and graphic representations, interpret writtentexts, deliberately create meanings, and share literacy related know how.Through interaction, social spaces emerge where readers and writers mediateliteracy for each other and cooperate to accomplish a shared goal; spaceswhere participants make meaning from and around written language andappropriate processes of interpretation and symbolic forms, as in the exam-ple of the instructor and her neighbor presented above. Social interaction isa crucial concept for understanding how learning takes place and how liter-acy is socially disseminated. It is there where knowledge is constructed by
531Beyond Definition
active participants who simultaneously organize their knowledge withinthemselves and with each other (John Steiner 2000).
Learners exposed to the most mechanical and prescriptive aspects of liter-acy through copy, dictation, and drill appropriate this particular strain ofliteracy. In each of these tasks, the content, form, and use of written textsis determined by a more powerful other. In authentic uses of literacy, thereader and writer control their reading and writing activities. Access toliteracy, in a broad sense of the term, requires contact with powerfuldiscourses and literacy practices that lead to understanding and respondingto other discourses (Bakhtin 1981), how to read the world using experienceand texts as a reference, (Freire 1970); and relationships that give literacy aplace in ones’ personal and social life (Dyson 1997). Following Bakhtin’snotion dialogism, understanding and meaning are constructed through inter-action with others and expressed in the answers readers and writers (andspeakers) give in reply to different representations of their world and theirplace in it. Gee (1996: 142) refers to those discourses learned in socialnetworks beyond the family as ‘‘Secondary Discourses’’ and notes that they‘‘build on and extend the uses of language and values, beliefs and attitudes’’acquired as part of the primary discourse learned within families. They maybe more or less compatible ‘‘in words, deeds and values’’ with our existinglanguage practices, and they ‘‘involve uses of language, either written ororal, or both, as well as ways of thinking, valuing and behaving that gobeyond the uses of language in our primary Discourse’’ (Gee 1996).
Literacy practice, schooling, and community knowledge
Practice refers to the opportunities and types of participation in culturallyvalued activities rather than a strictly utilitarian deployment of writtenlanguage in order to achieve concrete goals (write messages, read the news-paper, write an essay, compose lyrics, and so on). According to Barton et al.(2000) ‘‘literacy is best understood as a set of social practices; these areobservable in events which are mediated by written texts’’ (p. 9). Participat-ing in the social world implies a wide range of possible communicativeevents where reading and writing are crucial for intervening: reading litera-ture (novels, stories, essays, poetry and plays) for example, is a social activ-ity in the sense that interpretive practices are historically construed and theirmeanings are set in a universe of written texts. The same can be argued forreading and writing graffiti. Reciting isolated syllables (ma me mi mo mu) orsacred texts is also a way of participating in specific reading events or reli-gious ceremonies; however, these types of practices do not necessarily giveway to participating in contexts other than those mentioned.
Research has shown that school is not the only place where learning to readand write occurs (Ferdman et al. 1994; Hull and Shultz 2002; Street 1993).While school has a central role in developing new generations of readers and
532 Judy Kalman
writers, the dissemination of written language practices often occurs in thecontext of work, political organization, worship, health care, and other con-texts of everyday life. In each of these cases, researchers have pointed out thatothers played an important role in the process of becoming literate. The liter-ate others served as mediators through different discourse worlds.
Rivero (1999) notes that parents have little or no schooling, they may beanxious for their children to attend school hoping that it will better theirchildren’s life opportunities, but their desire may be hindered by economicnecessity. In situations of poverty, maintaining youngsters in school is anexpensive proposition: schooling requires supplies, uniforms and transporta-tion; children in school are not economically active nor are they available totake on family chores that free other members to go to work. In a contextof economic crisis, the tendency for poor families is to take their childrenout of school simply because it is a luxury that cannot be afforded.
A recent study on marginalized urban youth in Mexico reports that aschildren grow into early adolescence (Hernandez Flores 2004) they may wantto assume more and more household and economic responsibilities; contrib-uting to the domestic economy is highly valued and appreciated at home.Their interest in formal schooling and its accompanying activities declines orbecomes secondary due to more pressing issues. In this study, leaving schooldoes not carry the same stigma that it might in more middle class contexts,for the commitment to formal education is displaced by a commitment tohelping support their household, paying their own expenses, participating inwhat are seen as more adult-like activities.
Schooling is not necessarily the norm for many of those people living indeveloping countries; dominant literacies are not always a part of family orcommunity life. This reality raises important questions about the meaning ofliteracy and the use of reading and writing in marginalized communities.What about those who do not have jobs? Those that do not go to school orleave at an early age? Those who are members of families where the parents,grandparents, and/or siblings do not necessarily read and write fluently orfrequently? Those who have little contact with others who read and write?What is literacy for people not in school, not within institutional, cultural orlabor structures where literacy is in constant use, display and motion? Howdoes literacy come into their lives? When? With what purpose?
We learn the language that surrounds us, including written language andits uses. For this reason our knowledge about multiple uses of writtenlanguage grows from the opportunities we have to participate in communica-tive events where literacy is continuously used. Furthermore, reading andwriting practices always occur in a context of social relationships that atonce permeate how we read and write and are a part of these practices. Incommunities where reading and writing are scarce, those who can read andwrite are important literacy agents for their acquaintances and family mem-bers, serving as a link between societal demands for reading and writing andindividual uses of written text.
533Beyond Definition
Recently, the economist Subramanian (2006) has noted this phenomenonstating ‘‘Literacy, in this view, is something like a public good: literatemembers of a household are seen as conferring a beneficial externality on itsilliterate members. As a consequence, ‘effective’ literacy is larger than wouldbe yielded by a straightforward headcount of those who are literate (p. 1)’’.One family member’s reading and writing know-how become cultural capitalfor all, a shared commodity that is a resource for the entire household.More literate community members who have the important job of mediatingwritten culture for others, often teach their neighbors and friends how toread and write in the process of helping them satisfy specific reading andwriting needs. Likewise, those who have continuous contact with contextswhere dominant language practices are used, disseminated and promoted(schools, universities, publishing industry, the media, official agencies) appro-priate these literacy practices as their primary discourse; those who live,work and grow up in marginalized contexts will learn the discourses of localliteracies and language practices.
In their paper, The Nature of Literacy; A historical exploration (first pub-lished in 1977), Resnick and Resnick note that ‘‘there has been a sharp shiftover time in expectations concerning literacy’’ (Resnick and Resnick 1988).They further comment that the high standard of literacy is a recent develop-ment, holding a large population accountable for literacy practices once onlyexpected of a few. The ability to read new material, understand, synthesizeand use information, and produce written documents was once onlyexpected of an educated elite (p. 190). The goal of universal, mass literacy isindeed a recent one.
Conclusion
For decades it was assumed that literacy and education would contribute toeconomic development, democratization processes, and political participationand would also have profound effects in people’s lives. But literacy is neitherautonomous, nor an independent variable (Graff 2008). What research andtheory show is that literacy is deeply embedded in other dimensions of sociallife. Its effects are more limited, and deeper changes in the living conditionsof marginalized populations requires political and economic policies andactions on a different scale.
It is important to recognize the renewed interest in adult education asevidenced by the rising number of world meetings and conferences beingheld on this topic. The development of an increasingly more complex under-standing of literacy offers insights into how to appreciate the diversity ofliteracy and how to create contexts for learning. This means contemplatinglocal literacy practices and figuring out ways to move beyond the immediate.But this cannot be achieved if local literacies are not taken into account.Furthermore, it is necessary to understand how the local context is
534 Judy Kalman
embedded in broader social arrangements: asymmetrical power relationships,institutions, and historical configurations.
Notes
1. See, for example Graff (1987, 2008), Resnick (1988), Plan Regional de Al-fabetizacion 2007–2015, Organizacion de Estados Iberoamericanos http://www.oei.es/alfabetizacion/FOLLETOPIA2.pdf; NIFL. (2004). Report on Activities andAccomplishments. National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2006,www.nifl.gov/nifl/publications/accomplish.pdf.
2. Currently being used in several Latin American countries, for example, is Yo sipuedo a program recently developed in Cuba based on the letter by letter teachinggraphic-phonemic relations.
References
Baker, D. 2004. Access and Equal Opportunities: Is it Sufficient for Maths/Numeracy,Development and Social Justice? Paper presented at the 2006 Uppingham Seminar.Unpublished manuscript, Uppingham.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin, tr. byC. Emerson and H. Holquist. Austin, Texas: University of Austin Press.
Barton, David. 1994. Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language.Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.
Barton, David, and Mary Hamilton. 1998. Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in OneCommunity. London and New York: Routledge.
Barton, David, Mary Hamilton, and R. Ivanic (ed.). 2000. Situated Literacies: Readingand Writing in Context, Vol. 1. London and New York: Routledge.
Baynham, Mike. 1995. Literacy Practices. Investigating Literacy in Social Contexts.London and New York: Longman.
Brandt, Deborah. 1998. Sponsors of Literacy. College Composition and Communication49: 165–185.
Brandt, Deborah, and K. Clinton. 2002. The Limits of the Local: ExpandingPerspectives on Literacy as a Social Practice. Journal of Literacy Research 34: 337–356.
Duranti, Alessandro, and C. Goodwin (eds.). 1992. Rethinking Context. Language as anInteractive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dyson, A. 1997. Writing Superheroes: Contemporary Childhood, Popular Culture, andClassroom Literacy. (Vol. 2). New York & London: Teachers College Press.
Farr, M. 1994. En los dos idiomas: Literacy practice among Chicano Mexicanos. In:Literacy across communities, ed. by B. Moss, 9–48. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Ferdman, B. W., W. Rose-Marie, and Arnulfo Ramırez (eds.). 1994. Literacy AcrossLanguages and Cultures. New York: State University of New York Press.
Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogıa del oprimido. Mexico City: Siglo XX1 Editores.
535Beyond Definition
Gallego, M., and S. Hollingsworth. 2000. What Counts as Literacy. Challenging theSchool Standard. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gee, James. 1988. The Legacies of Literacy: From Plato to Freire Through HarveyGraff. Harvard Educational Review 58(2): 159–212.
——. 1996. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology and Discourses (2nd ed., Vol. 16).Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Gee, James, G. Hull, and C. Lankshear. 1996. The New Work Order: Behind theLanguage of the New Capitalism. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Goody, Jack, and I. Watt. 1968. The Consequences of Literacy. In: Literacy inTraditional Societies, ed. by Jack Goody, 1–68. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Graff, H. J. 1987. The Legacies of Literacy: Continuities and Contradictions in WesternCulture and Society. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Graff, H. 2008. Literacy Myths. In: Encyclopedia of Language and Education, ed. by B.Street and N. Hornberger, (Vol. 2) 41–52. New York: Springer.
Gumperz, John. 1984. Introduction: Language and Communication of Social Indentity.In: Language and Social Identity, ed. by John Gumperz, 1–21. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Gumperz, John, and D. Hymes (ed.). 1986. Directions in Sociolinguistics. TheEthnography of Communication. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Heath, S. 1983. Ways with Words. Language, Life and Work in Communities andClassrooms. Cambridge, London and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hernandez Flores, G. 2004. Polıticas educativas para la poblacion en estado de pobreza,Educacion basica de personas jovenes y adultas. Un estudio de caso. [Educational policiesfor people living in poverty. Basic education for adults and youths. A case study]. MexicoCity: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.
Hull, G., and K. Shultz (eds.). 2002. Schools Out! Bridging Out of School Literacies withClassroom Practice. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Kalman, J. 1993. En busqueda de una palabra nueva [In Search of a New Word].Revista latinoamericana de estudios educativos 23(1): 87–95.
——. 2003. El acceso a la cultura escrita: la participacion social y la apropiacion deconocimientos en eventos cotidianos de lectura y escritura. Revista Mexicana deInvestigacion Educativa, Mexico VIII(17): 37–66.
——. 2004. Saber lo que es la letra: una experiencia de lecto-escritura con mujeres enMixquic. Mexico, DF: Secretarıa de Educacion Publica-UIE-Siglo XXI Editores.
——. 2005. Discovering Literacy. Access Routes to Written Culture for a Group ofWomen in Mexico (translated by the author). Hamburg: UNESCO Institute ofEducation.
Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning. Legitimate PeripheralParticipation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levine, K. 1986. The Social Context of Literacy. London and New York: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.
Pattison, R. 1982. On Literacy. The Politics of the Word from Homer to the Age of Rock.Oxford, New York, Toronto and Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
536 Judy Kalman
Resnick, D., and L. Resnick. 1988. The Nature of Literacy. A Historical Exploration.In: Perspectives on Literacy, ed. by E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, and M. Rose, 190–202.Carbondale IL: Southern Illionis University Press.
Rivero, J. 1999. Educacion y Exclusion en America Latina. Reformas en tiempos degloblizacion [Education and Exclusion in Latin America. Reform in the era ofglobalization]. Madrid and Buenos Aires: Nino y Davila Editores.
Rogoff, B. 1990. Apprenticeship in Thinking. Cognitive Development in Social Context.New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scribner, S. 1988. Literacy in Three Metaphores. In: Perspectives on Literacy, ed. by E.R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, and M. Rose, 71–81. Carbondale and Edwardsville: SouthernIllionis University Press.
Stanley, M. 1972. Literacy: The Crisis of Conventional Wisdom. School Review 80: 373–408.
Steiner, John V. 2000. Creativity and Collaboration in Knowledge Construction. In:Vygotskyian Perspectives on Literary Research, ed. by C. Lee and P. Smagorinnsky,31–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Street, Brian V. 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge, New York, NewRochelle, Melbourne and Sydney: Cambridge University Press.
Street, Brian (ed.). 1993. Cross Cultural Approaches to Literacy. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Subramanian, S. 2006. Externality and Equity in the measurement of literacy. Exploringthe link. Gandhinagar: 1–13.
——. 2003. What’s ‘‘New’’ in New Literacy Studies? Critical Approaches to Literacy inTheory and Practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education 52(2): 77–102.
Torres, Rosa-Maria. 2000. Literacy for All. A United Nations Literacy Decade (2003–2012). Base document prepared for UNESCO. http://www.fronesis.org/immagen/rmt/documentosrmt/UN_Literacy_Decade.pdf.
Warschauer, M. 2002. Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide. First Monday. A PeerReviewed journal on the Internet, 7(7).
The author
Judy Kalman is a researcher at the Departamento de Investigaciones Educativas of theCentro de Investigacion y Estudios Avanzados del IPN in Mexico City. Her workcenters on the social construction of written culture, everyday literacy use, and reading
and writing in school settings. She has authored articles in Spanish, English andPortuguese in academic journals and practitioner oriented publications. She has alsocollaborated with the Secretarıa de Educacion Publica in Mexico on programs designed
for creating learning opportunities for adult learners, evaluating new curricular pro-posals and writing materials for the language arts programs for students in rural sec-ondary schools. In 2002 she was the recipient for the International Literacy Research
given by the UNESCO Institute for Education for her literacy work with unschooledand under schooled women. She has been a member of the Mexican Academy of Sciencesince 2004.
537Beyond Definition
Contact address: Departamento de Investigaciones Educativas, Centro de Investi-
gacion y Estudios Avanzados del IPN (DIE-CINVESTAV), Mexico City, Mexico.E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected].
538 Judy Kalman
Recommended
