Essay 2.5 pages long

1

Literacy and the Politics of Education by C. H. Knoblauch Knoblauch, C.H. “Literacy and the Politics of Education.” The Right to Literacy. Ed. Andrea A.

Lunsford, Helene Moglen, and James Slevin. New York: MLA, 1990. 74-80.

Literacy is one of those mischievous concepts, like virtuousness and craftsmanship,

that appear to denote capacities but that actually convey value judgments. It is rightly

viewed, Linda Brodkey has noted, "as a social trope" and its sundry definitions "as cultural

Rorschachs" (47). The labels literate and illiterate almost always imply more than a degree or

deficiency of skill. They are, grossly or subtly, sociocultural judgments laden with 5

approbation, disapproval, or pity about the character and place, the worthiness and prospects,

of persons and groups. A revealing exercise would be to catalog the definitions of literacy

that lie explicit or implicit in the pages of this collection, definitions that motivate judgments,

political no less than scholarly, about which people belong in literate and illiterate categories;

the numbers in each group; why and in what ways literacy is important; what should be done 10

for or about those who are not literate or are less literate than others; and who has the power

to say so. It would be quickly apparent that there is no uniformity of view, since the values

that surround reading and writing abilities differ from argument to argument. Instead, there

are competing views, responsive to the agendas of those who characterize the ideal.

Invariably, definitions of literacy are also rationalizations of its importance. Furthermore, 15

they are invariably offered by the literate, constituting, therefore, implicit rationalizations of

the importance of literate people, who are powerful (the reasoning goes) because they are

literate and, as such, deserving of power.

The concept of literacy is embedded, then, in the ideological dispositions of those

who use the concept, those who profit from it, and those who have the standing and 20

motivation to enforce it as a social requirement. It is obviously not a cultural value in all

times and places; when Sequoya brought his syllabic writing system to the Cherokee, their

first inclination was to put him to death for dabbling in an evil magic. The majority of the

world's languages have lacked alphabets, though they have nonetheless articulated rich oral

traditions in societies that have also produced many other varieties of cultural achievement. 25

To be sure, there is ready agreement, at least among the literate, about the necessity of

literacy in the so-called modern world; this agreement is reinforced by explanations that

2

typically imply a more developed mode of existence among literate people. I. J. Gelb has

written, for instance: "As language distinguishes man from animal, so writing distinguishes

civilized man from barbarian," going on to point out that "an illiterate person cannot expect 30

to participate successfully in human progress, and what is true of individuals is also true of

any group of individuals, social strata, or ethnic units" (221-22). This argument offers a

common and pernicious half-truth, representing the importance of literacy, which is

unquestionable, in absolutist and ethnocentric terms.

However, if literacy today is perceived as a compelling value, the reason lies not in 35

such self-interested justifications but in its continuing association with forms of social reality

that depend on its primacy. During the Middle Ages, clerks were trained to read and write so

that they could keep accounts for landowners, merchants, and government officials.

Bureaucratic documentation was not conceived so that people could acquire literacy.

Christian missionaries in nineteenth-century Africa spread literacy so that people could read 40

the Bible; they did not teach the Bible so that the illiterate could become readers and writers.

There is no question that literacy is necessary to survival and success in the contemporary

world--a world where the literate claim authority to set the terms of survival and success, a

world that reading and writing abilities have significantly shaped in the first place. But it is

important to regard that necessity in the context of political conditions that account for it, or 45

else we sacrifice the humanizing understanding that life can be otherwise than the way we

happen to know it and that people who are measured positively by the yardstick of literacy

enjoy their privileges because of their power to choose and apply that instrument on their

own behalf, not because of their point of development or other innate worthiness. Possessing

that understanding, educators in particular but other citizens as well may advance their 50

agendas for literacy with somewhat less likelihood of being blinded by the light of their own

benevolence to the imperial designs that may lurk in the midst of their compassion.

In the United States today, several arguments about the nature and importance of

literacy vie for power in political and educational life. Sketching the more popular arguments

may remind us of the extent to which definitions of the concept incorporate the social 55

agendas of the definers, serving the needs of the nonliterate only through the mediation of

someone's vision of the way the world should be. Literacy never stands alone in these

perspectives as a neutral denoting of skills; it is always literacy for something--for

3

professional competence in a technological world, for civic responsibility and the

preservation of heritage, for personal growth and self-fulfillment, for social and political 60

change. The struggle of any one definition to dominate the others entails no merely casual or

arbitrary choice of values, nor does it allow for a conflating of alternatives in some grand

compromise or list of cumulative benefits. At stake are fundamentally different perceptions

of social reality; the nature of language and discourse; the importance of culture, history, and

tradition; the functions of schools, as well as other commitments, few of which are regarded 65

as negotiable. At the same time, since no definition achieves transcendent authority, their

dialectical interaction offers a context of choices within which continually changing

educational and other social policies find their justification. The process of choosing is

visible every day, for better and worse, in legislative assemblies, television talk shows,

newspaper editorials, and classrooms throughout the country. 70

The most familiar literacy argument comes from the functionalist perspective, with its

appealingly pragmatic emphasis on readying people for the necessities of daily life--writing

checks, reading sets of instructions--as well as for the professional tasks of a complex

technological society. Language abilities in this view are often represented by the metaphors

of information theory: language is a code that enables the sending of messages and the 75

processing of information. The concern of a functionalist perspective is the efficient

transmission of useful messages in a value-neutral medium. Basic-skill and technical-writing

programs in schools, many on-the-job training programs in business and industry, and the

training programs of the United States military--all typically find their rationalization in the

argument for functional literacy, in each case presuming that the ultimate value of language 80

lies in its utilitarian capacity to pass information back and forth for economic or other

material gain.

The functionalist argument has the advantage of tying literacy to concrete needs,

appearing to promise socioeconomic benefit to anyone who can achieve the appropriate

minimal competency. But it has a more hidden advantage as well, at least from the standpoint 85

of those whose literacy is more than minimal: it safeguards the socioeconomic status quo.

Whatever the rhetoric of its advocates concerning the "self-determined objectives" (Hunter

and Harman 7) of people seeking to acquire skills, functionalism serves the world as it is,

inviting outsiders to enter that world on the terms of its insiders by fitting themselves to roles

4

that they are superficially free to choose but that have been prepared as a range of acceptable 90

alternatives. Soldiers will know how to repair an MX missile by reading the field manual but

will not question the use of such weapons because of their reading of antimilitarist

philosophers; clerks will be able to fill out and file their order forms but will not therefore be

qualified for positions in higher management. Functionalist arguments presume that a given

social order is right simply because it exists, and their advocates are content to recommend 95

the training of persons to take narrowly beneficial places in that society. The rhetoric of

technological progressivism is often leavened with a mixture of fear and patriotism (as in A

Nation at Risk) in order to defend a social program that maintains managerial classes--whose

members are always more than just functionally literate--in their customary places while

outfitting workers with the minimal reading and writing skills needed for usefulness to the 100

modern information economy.

Cultural literacy offers another common argument about the importance of reading

and writing, one frequently mounted by traditionalist educators but sustained in populist

versions as well, especially among people who feel insecure about their own standing and

their future prospects when confronted by the volatile mix of ethnic heritages and 105

socioeconomic interests that make up contemporary American life. The argument for

cultural literacy moves beyond a mechanist conception of basic skills and toward an

affirmation of supposedly stable and timeless cultural values inscribed in the verbal memory-

-in particular, the canonical literature of Western European society. Its reasoning is that true

literacy entails more than technical proficiency, a minimal ability to make one's way in the 110

world; that literacy also includes an awareness of cultural heritage, a capacity for higher-

order thinking, even some aesthetic discernment, faculties not automatically available to the

encoders and decoders of the functionalist perspective. Language is no mere tool in this view

but is, rather, a repository of cultural values and to that extent a source of social cohesion. To

guard the vitality of the language, the advocates of cultural literacy say, citizens must learn to 115

speak and write decorously, as well as functionally, and must also read great books, where

the culture is enshrined. In some popular versions of cultural literacy, English is regarded as

the only truly American language and is, therefore, the appropriate medium of commerce and

government. The economic self-interest that pervades the functionalist perspective frequently

gives way here to jingoistic protectionism; cultural literacy advocates presume that the 120

5

salvation of some set of favored cultural norms or language practices lies necessarily in the

marginalizing or even extinction of others.

The argument for cultural literacy often presents itself within a myth of the fall from

grace: Language and, by extension, culture once enjoyed an Edenlike existence but are

currently degenerating because of internal decay and sundry forces of barbarism. People no 125

longer read, write, or think with the strength of insight of which they were once capable.

They no longer remember and, therefore, no longer venerate. The age of high culture has

passed; minds and characters have been weakened by television or rock music or the 1960s.

The reasons vary, but the message is clear: unless heritage is protected, the former purity of

language reconstituted, the past life of art and philosophy retrieved, we risk imminent 130

cultural decay. However extravagant such predictions appear to unbelievers, there is no

mistaking the melancholy energy of contemporary proponents of cultural literacy or, if we

are to judge from the recent best-seller lists, the number of solemn citizens--anxious perhaps

about recent influxes of Mexicans, Vietnamese, and other aliens--who take their warnings to

heart. 135

Arguments for cultural and functional literacy plainly dominate the American

imagination at the moment and for obvious reasons. They articulate the needs, hopes,

anxieties, and frustrations of the conservative temper. They reveal in different ways the

means of using an ideal of literacy to preserve and advance the world as it is, a world in

which the interests of traditionally privileged groups dominate the interests of the 140

traditionally less privileged. Schools reflect such conservatism to the extent that they view

themselves as agencies for preserving established institutions and values, not to mention the

hierarchical requirements of the American economy. But still other arguments, if not quite so

popular, reflect the priorities and the agendas of liberal and even radical ideologies struggling

to project their altered visions of social reality, seeking their own power over others under the 145

banner of literacy. The liberal argument, for instance, emphasizes literacy for personal

growth, finding voice in the process-writing movement in American high schools or in the

various practices of personalized learning. The liberal argument has been successful, up to a

point, in schools because it borrows from long-hallowed American myths of expressive

freedom and boundless individual opportunity, romantic values to which schools are obliged 150

to pay at least lip service even when otherwise promoting more authoritarian curricula.

6

The assumption of a literacy-for-personal-growth argument is that language expresses

the power of the individual imagination, so that nurturing a person’s reading and writing

abilities enables the development of that power, thereby promoting the progress of society

through the progress of the individual learner. The political agenda behind this liberalism 155

tends to be educational and other social change; its concern for personal learning draws

attention to school practices that supposedly thwart the needs of individual students or that

disenfranchise some groups of students in the interest of maintaining the values of the status

quo. The kinds of change that the personal-growth argument recommends are, on the whole,

socially tolerable because they are moderate in character: let students read enjoyable novels, 160

instead of basal reader selections; let young women and young Hispanics find images of

themselves in schoolwork, not just images of white males. Using the rhetoric of moral

sincerity, the personal-growth argument speaks compassionately on behalf of the

disadvantaged. Meanwhile, it avoids for the most part, the suggestion of any fundamental

restructuring of institutions, believing that the essential generosity and fair-mindedness of 165

American citizens will accommodate some liberalization of outmoded curricula and an

improved quality of life for the less privileged as long as fundamental political and economic

interests are not jeopardized. Frequently, Americans do hear such appeals, though always in

the context of an implicit agreement that nothing important is going to change. Accordingly,

advocates of expressive writing, personalized reading programs, whole-language curricula, 170

and open classrooms have been permitted to carry out their educational programs, with

politicians and school officials quick to realize the ultimate gain in administrative control that

comes from allowing such modest symbols of self-determination to release built-up pressures

of dissatisfaction.

A fourth argument substantially to the left of personal growth is one that Henry 175

Giroux, among others, calls critical literacy (226). Critical literacy is a radical perspective

whose adherents, notably Paulo Freire, have been influential primarily in the third world,

especially Latin America. Strongly influenced by Marxist philosophical premises, critical

literacy is not a welcome perspective in this country, and it finds voice currently in only a

few academic enclaves, where it exists more as a facsimile of oppositional culture than as a 180

practice, and in an even smaller number of community-based literacy projects which are

typically concerned with adult learners. Its agenda is to identify reading and writing abilities

7

with a critical consciousness of the social conditions in which people find themselves,

recognizing the extent to which language practices objectify and rationalize these conditions

and the extent to which people with authority to name the world dominate others whose 185

voices they have been able to suppress. Literacy, therefore, constitutes a means to power, a

way to seek political enfranchisement--not with the naive expectation that merely being

literate is sufficient to change the distribution of prerogatives but with the belief that the

ability to speak alone enables entrance to the arena in which power is contested. At stake,

from this point of view, is, in principle, the eventual reconstituting of the class structure of 190

American life, specifically a change of those capitalist economic practices that assist the

dominance of particular groups.

For that reason, if for no other, such a view of literacy will remain suspect as a

theoretical enterprise and will be considered dangerous, perhaps to the point of illegality, in

proportion to its American adherents' attempts to implement it practically in schools and 195

elsewhere. The scholarly right has signaled this institutional hostility in aggressive attacks on

Jonathan Kozol's Illiterate America, the most popular American rendering of critical-literacy

arguments, for its supposedly inaccurate statistics about illiteracy and in calculatedly pa-

tronizing Kozol's enthusiasm for radical change. Meanwhile, although critical literacy is

trendy in some academic circles, those who commend it also draw their wages from the 200

capitalist economy it is designed to challenge. Whether its advocates will take Kozol's risks

in bringing so volatile a practice into community schools is open to doubt. Whether

something important would change if they did take the risks is also doubtful. Whether, if

successful, they would still approve a world in which their own privileges were withheld may

be more doubtful still. In any case, one can hardly imagine NCTE or the MLA, let alone the 205

Department of Education, formally sanctioning such a fundamental assault on their own

institutional perquisites.

Definitions of literacy could be multiplied far beyond these popular arguments. But

enumerating others would only belabor my point, which is that no definition tells, with

ontological or objective reliability, what literacy is; definitions only tell what some person or 210

group--motivated by political commitment—wants or needs literacy to be. What makes any

such perspective powerful is the ability of its adherents to make it invisible or at least,

transparent--a window on the world, revealing simple and stable truths--so that the only

8

problem still needing to be addressed is one of implementation: how best to make the world--

other people--conform to that prevailing vision. At the same time, what makes an ideology 215

visible as such and, therefore, properly limited in its power to compel unconscious assent is

critical scrutiny, the only safeguard people have if they are to be free of the designs of others.

To the extent that literacy advocates of one stripe or another remain unconscious of or too

comfortable with those designs, their offerings of skills constitute a form of colonizing, a

benign but no less mischievous paternalism that rationalizes the control of others by 220

representing it as a means of liberation. To the extent that the nonliterate allow themselves to

be objects of someone else's "kindness," they will find no power in literacy, however it is

defined, but only altered terms of dispossession. When, for instance, the memberships of U.

S. English and English First, totaling around half a million citizens, argue for compulsory

English, they may well intend the enfranchisement of those whose lack of English-language 225

abilities has depressed their economic opportunities. But they also intend the extinction of

cultural values inscribed in languages other than their own and held to be worthwhile by

people different from themselves. In this or any other position on literacy, its advocates, no

less than its intended beneficiaries, need to hear--for all our sakes--a critique of whatever

assumptions and beliefs are fueling their passionate benevolence. 230

WORKS CITED

Brodkey, Linda. "Tropics of Literacy." Journal of Education 168 (1986): 47-54.

Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational

Reform. Washington: GPO, 1983.

Gelb, I. J. A Study of Writing. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1952.

Giroux, Henry A. Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the Opposition.

South Hadley: Bergin, 1983.

Hunter, Carman St. John, and David Harman. Adult Literacy in the United States. New York:

McGraw, 1979.

Kozol, Jonathan. Illiterate America. New York: Anchor, 1985.