WE THE [LITERATE] PEOPLE

In this new and exciting technology age you might find yourself wondering, “Is it strange that I go to dictionary.com rather than referencing a print dictionary?” Or maybe, “What is the function of the cerebellum? Oh wait, I’ll Just Google it!” Some may argue that our generation is technology-dependent. But is that a bad thing? And if not, how so? In this essay I will argue how Americans, as readers and writers, are becoming simple yet broad, rudimentary yet evolved, and how we are shrinking yet stretching. Additionally, these three comparisons will help me prove how Americans are becoming astute, competent and empowered.

1. Simple Yet Broad

            As readers and writers, we are becoming simple yet broad. Americans are simple in everything we do. We look for shortcuts while driving. We research cheating codes when playing video games. We ‘drive-thru’ restaurants more often than sitting down at them. We even shorten phrases like talk to you later to “ttyl”. It isn’t customary for of our country to do anything the ‘long way’. We are as impatient as ever, so why would our writing and reading techniques be any different? Thus we are simple readers and writers.

      When writing, we use acronyms, abbreviations and anything else that may take less of our valuable time. We are more likely to write an email than to write a letter. Furthermore, we are more likely to write a text message than to write an email. See a trend here? We want the fastest, easiest and ultimately simplest way to communicate our message.

      When reading, we skim headlines. In writer Nicholas Carr’s opinion, we have become a “power browse” generation, which describes the way we quickly jump from page to page, waiting for a headline or story to catch our eye. But even when we land on an interesting news story or blog, are we likely to read the entire piece? In his essay “Is Google Making us Stupid?”, written in 2008, Carr points out the change in newspapers, when in that Spring, The New York Times decided to devote the second and third pages of every edition to article abstracts. The paper explained that the “shortcuts” would give harried readers a quick “taste” of the day’s news, sparing them the “less efficient” method of actually turning the pages and reading the articles (Carr 3). But because we are simpler, we are more efficient and thus able to attain knowledge in a wide range of topics.

            We have become broad readers and writers. The Internet has given us the ability to read or write about anything our hearts desire. We are not limited like the previous generations were. Our range of interests are able to expand because of websites such as Google. To ‘Google’ something is much simpler than it would be to go to a library and look up that information.

            Not limited to just reading, our writing has also become much broader. We have many more media to write in and therefore our knowledge of the audience and context of those media have expanded. From blogging, email, text, comments and statuses all to way to academic reports and job applications (all of which can be done via technology), our knowledge of these very different types of writing is important. In her essay “Our Semi-Literate Youth? Not So Fast”, Andrea Lunsford, Professor of English and Director of the Program in Writing and Rhetoric at Stanford, contrasts a student’s email to her professor and a text message to her friend. Both messages were about the student’s internship. With this contrast she successfully demonstrates that these new media aren’t hurting our literacy but rather improving it. The student was able to identify the context of each media and address each audience appropriately (Lunsford 2). Because we now read many different types of information and we are able to identify the context and audience of a broad range of media, we have become astute.

2. Shrinking Yet Stretching

            As readers and writers, we are shrinking yet stretching. In terms of “deep reading”, we as a society are shrinking. Our ability to read lengthy essays, whole novels or even a full blog post is decreasing over time. Carr reveals, “The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle” (Carr 1). This can be attributed to many different causes. Perhaps to the newspapers’ short blurbs on front pages, which prevent us from wanting to read an entire article. Or maybe is because of the decrease in print materials - like newspapers - all together. We are no longer forced to ‘look up’ information the old-fashioned way. Rather than searching through multiple print sources to find what we are looking for, we only need to Google it. No extra searching needed. Do we miss out on the additional (but unnecessary) information we could have learned by doing it the old-fashioned way? Or do we gain more knowledge because by looking it up through a search engine, we use our time efficiently, and thus leave ample time to learn more important information?

            Whatever way you approach this issue, we are indeed reading less. But is the quantity what reading is all about? Andrew Sullivan, avid blogger, argues in his essay “Why I Blog”, “No one wants to read a 9,000-word treatise online. On the Web, one-sentence links are as legitimate as thousand-word diatribes—in fact, they are often valued more” (Sullivan 4). So maybe we are reading less deeply, but on the other hand, maybe what we are reading is more meaningful. Maybe we are even reading more frequently. Maybe we are beginning to read at younger ages.

            Maybe, but maybe not. Regardless, for all of the deep reading we lack, we make up for in writing. With the increasing amount of different media for our generation to place our thoughts and opinions, it would almost seem an abstract inevitable if we didn’t increase our writing rates. Blogger, Facebook, Twitter and other similar sites are all at our disposal to use in whichever way we chose. These informal writing sources are serving as a kind of ‘practice game’ for the real match, which is any type of formal writing. Lunsford found through her research, that the length of student writing has increased nearly three-fold in the last 25 years, corroborating the fact that students today are writing more than ever before (Lunsford 2). Because of our increased writing abilities, we have become competent.

3. Rudimentary Yet Evolved

            As readers and writers, we are becoming rudimentary yet evolved. Our preference for our knowledge to be quick and simple has brought us to a rudimentary level. We are less likely to challenge ourselves academically through reading or writing because it is too time consuming. Chris Hedges, American journalist and best-selling author, even argues, “Today the most famous “person” is Mickey Mouse”(Hedges 2). I wouldn’t necessarily go as far to say that, but I agree with Hedges in that America is becoming, if not already is, rudimentary. Our reading level is not challenged because the ways in which we receive information (newspapers, political campaigns, etc.) are watered down to an extremely low level of education. Instead of expecting Americans to ‘keep up’, we as a society, instead ‘slow down’. Writing a status on Facebook, which requires little to no effort at all (not to mention no grammatical substance), has arguably become the most identifiable type of writing.

            Though we are no doubt becoming rudimentary, aren’t we as a society also evolving in terms of literacy? As a society, we are writing in greater masses than ever before. In addition, we are writing in greater length. We are making huge making headway within the realm of blogging. Sullivan comments, “Indeed, the most pleasant surprise of blogging has been the number of people working in law or government or academia or rearing kids at home who have real literary talent and real knowledge, and who had no outlet—until now” (Sullivan 6). Our society is writing, reading and analyzing all simultaneously through the blogosphere. Sometimes it’s not all about quality or subject matter. The pure fact that blogging has given us great leaps in the frequency in which we read and write is enough. In “Literacy in Three Metaphors”, Sylvia Scribner, Professor of Psychology at the Graduate School of the City University of New York, states that literacy is a “social achievement”. She goes on to say, “Literacy abilities are acquired by individuals only in the course of participation in socially organized activities with written language” (Scribner 7-8). Seeing that Scribner wrote “Literacy in Three Metaphors” in 1984, I don’t think she was referencing blogging as a “socially organized activity with written language” but surely one could make that argument. Because of our evolution of writing, our ability blog to the entire world and thus make a voice for ourselves, we have become empowered.

            Throughout this essay I have done what I said I would do. I have shown how Americans, as readers and writers, are becoming simple yet broad, rudimentary yet evolved, and how we are shrinking yet stretching. I have also argued that because of these three ideas we have become astute, competent and empowered. Literacy may be hard to define, but if I had to come up with 3 synonyms astute, competent and empowered would suit perfectly. We are literate in our own context because we are astute, competent and empowered in the technology age in which we live. With any social change, there will be backlash. There will be criticism. But we need to defend ourselves. Because we are the future. We are the literate people. 

UNIT 1 IN REVIEW

The most challenging part about working with these posts is the subject matter. The texts we responded to are not widely known and so knowing my audience could be anyone anywhere, I struggled with how much to describe. Of course anyone in my class who read the essay will understand what I am talking about but other than that, my posts seem a bit meaningless. I have another class blog where we write about common knowledge ideas and pop culture. I enjoy writing those posts more.

I was pleasantly surprised at how the length of my blog posts felt less and less of a chore. Writing upwards of 250 words at first seemed daunting and was not as easy as it seems. Now my posts are easily double the requirement. I attribute half of the ease to repetition of blogging and the other half to our class text Rewriting. Harris helps a great deal when I often don’t know where to begin when commenting on another work. I refer to his 5 steps and immediately I have numerous ideas of what to write.

I find that since blogging, I am more apt to open the newspaper or pull up Yahoo! News. When I read I now am reading more for deep understanding and connections than anything (of course except when I am reading for “fun”). I’ll read about literacy in WRIT and then connect that to the social implications of literacy my SOCI class is talking about. Or, I will read and instead ‘just reading’ I continuously find myself writing question marks or exclamation marks in the margins. My attitude toward reading and writing on the web though has stayed about the same. I still prefer to read something in print – despite the environmental effects.  As far as writing on the web, it’s growing on me. That’s all for now, stay tuned for UNIT 2!

✌out

TWO WOMEN TAKE ON THE MEANING OF LITERACY

Two women, Sylvia Scribner and Andrea Lunsford take a closer look at the meaning of literacy in the context of America and other cultures. Andrea’s analysis was much simpler; she looked at how modern technologies related to literacy are actually enhancing younger generation’s understanding of the written word. She argues young adults are able to differentiate between the appropriate languages for a text message to a friend from an email to a professor. Sylvia looked at literacy from 3 different metaphorical perspectives as well as her own. She helps us understand the complexity of literacy and its definition by comparing literacy as adaptation, power and a state of grace. She also looks closely at the social implications of literacy through her own research in a West African village.

After reading these texts along with Hedge and Carr’s from last week, I am unable to confidently give a single sentence to define literacy. The meaning or definition of literacy is neither static nor universal. It is a multidimensional term that relies on the society and time period it is representing. A good example of this is in Sylvia’s Literacy in Three Metaphors. She references that literacy as a standard, in our country, has changed immensely. Since World War 1, our idea of the “minimal literacy threshold” has continually increased from a fourth grade reading level.

Hedge’s ideas in America The Illiterate and Lunsford’s ideas in Our Semi-Illiterate Youth? Not So Fast most definitely conflict each other. Hedge makes the claim that the level of technology we use in our daily life is making us more illiterate than we already are while Lunsford proves through her study that using technology such as email and texting as well as social networking improve the quantity of writing, increase the awareness of context and audience and prove no more errors (in writing) than previous studies. Scribner’s ideas in Literacy in Three Metaphors and Carr’s ideas in Is Google Making Us Stupid? are in accord. Carr shows through personal experience and historical evidence that the evolution of the level of literacy is normal. As people and social expectations change so will literacy. We can’t fight it so much as identify that the changes exist. Scribner explains how complex the idea of literacy is and how hard it is to identify and teach literacy. She shows through her research in Africa that the definition of literacy shouldn’t and isn’t static throughout different cultures. Both Carr and Scribner recognize that literacy is ever changing through social norms and across cultures and shouldn’t be limited to one definition.

We as Americans are stressed because although we cannot define literacy we strongly believe as a country that we are illiterate (or becoming illiterate) because of recent technological advances (computer, cellphone, kindle, Facebook, etc.,).

GOOGLE AND AMERICAN LITERACY

In 2008, Nicholas Carr posed the question, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”. Throughout his position paper on the issue, Carr points out the good and bad the Net has on our literacy. *SIDENOTE* I found it interesting that Carr spent a bit explaining his lack of attention for lengthy reads (that even a 2 or 3 paragraphs in a blog loose his full attention) but, then writes this 7 page argument and expects everyone else to be able to get through it. Nicholas Carr implies that he feels Google is making us stupid. He claims that with technology we are not able to “interpret text” or “make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction”.  When Carr wrote this article he referred to the fact that newspapers started to give the snippet of an article so that readers could at least get the gist without having to read a lengthy the whole text. I find it interesting that now newspapers are starting to disappear all together. Everything is online and everything we do confers back to the way we use the Internet such as “power browse”. On the other hand, he shows that previously people had thought that writing would fill people with “the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom”. This idea shows that not accepting the new ways of communication per say could limit a society in the achievements they could be making. Finally, Carr ends his lengthy position by stating, “As we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence”. So while there are some downfalls to the Internet, Carr agree to disagree that while the Internet may be dumbing us down a bit, it certainly is explicitly unavoidable.

Chris Hedge defines literacy as the ability to be an intellectual and informed citizen of the US. Hedge critiques America because we crutch our citizens at their literacy level. He is suggesting that rather than come down to the level of the illiterate, which is the American way (a quick fix), we should improve the literacy of our country. Hedge refers to our time as the “post-literate world”. Rather than reduce campaign ads to slogans costing millions of dollars, that money should instead help educate the population so that we live in an efficient and educated world.

Hedge and Carr’s critiques are a bit different. While Carr is stating ‘this Internet Age is the world we live in, yes it has its downfalls but it is just another chapter in the book’, Hedge is taking that critique and analyzing it a bit further. This information/Internet Age has possibly reduced our level of literacy and/or doesn’t help improve our current literacy rates. Hedge has a much more serious approach than Carr. Hedge’s critique takes Carr’s to the next level, it answers the “so what?” question. Carr puts it out there that the world is reliant on computers, which are constantly limiting our attention span and ability to process deep texts and Hedge takes that idea and puts it into perspective with stats and strong statements about the serious reality this illiteracy is causing Americans (i.e., not understanding credit card agreements or equity lines of credit and unable to eat in sit down restaurants).