Lankshear, Colin. "Understanding Literacy". Literacy, Schooling, and Revolution. New York: The Falmer Press, 1987: 37-75.
Ong, Walter J. "Writing Is a Technology that Restructures Thought." Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Eds. Ellen Cushman, Eugene R. Kintgen, Barry M. Kroll, and Mike Rose. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001: 19-31.
Lankshear and Ong: Defining Literacy, Defending Writing
In pursuit of seeking to characterize the precise nature of literacy, and what it does (and does not) entail, Colin Lankshear’s "Understanding Literacy" - the second chapter from his critical study, Literacy, Schooling, and Revolution - presents common misconceptions on the subject, and then disproves and amends them. In opening "Understanding Literacy", Lankshear notes that there are "many aspects of the practice of reading and writing - social, cultural, historical, etc. - that are intrinsically interesting" (37). This observation leads to several key questions that Lankshear addresses throughout the chapter: what defines literacy? What does it mean to be "literate" or "illiterate"? What about literacy makes it valuable, and to whom? (37) By asking these questions - which, Lankshear notes, have been labeled as redundant in the Western world, where it is widely presumed that "we all know what it [literacy] is and why it is so valuable and important" (37) - many contemporary scholars (including Lankshear) have departed from vague, overgeneralized assumptions on literacy, and are instead focusing on more concrete ideas, and their implications.
In redefining literacy, Lankshear first analyzes three frequent points of misunderstanding, which form the Autonomous Model of Literacy. Firstly, this model views literacy as "unitary" - that it is a "thing", a "skill" that is either possessed or not, and that it is used in the same manner and for the same purposes "in the end" (39), regardless of individual or social differences. A second aspect of the Autonomous Model identifies literacy as a "neutral" process: that it exists independent of social, political, cultural, religious, or other contexts. The "alleged neutrality of literacy" (40) implies that literacy "remains aloof from the actual practices and processes" (40) in which it is embedded and, uninfluenced by purpose or usage, merely serves as a transmitter within these realms. The third idea of the Autonomous Model considers literacy as an "independent variable" - that it is, in its independent state, "responsible for bringing about a number of general - and generally desirable - outcomes" (41). Furthermore, these "positive outcomes" are classified as "‘cognitive’, ‘economic-developmental’, and ‘social’ respectively" (41).
Lankshear debunks these presumptions with the aid of contemporary scholarly research, particularly that of Harvey Graff and Brian Street, that reveals not a concept of "literacy", but rather that of "literacies" - the foundation for the Ideological Model. Finding major fallacies within the Autonomous Model, he asserts that (1) literacies play a prominent role in the shaping and functioning of societies and their individuals, contrary to the idea that literacy is solitary or "unitary"; (2) once literacies are shown to comprise of social practices and influenced by external contexts, the "neutrality" myth can easily be discredited, since "neutrality" necessitates literacy being separate from society and its characteristics; and that (3) literacy, on its own merit, cannot be an "independent variable" with desirable results; the issue is much more complex and such a vague and general claim cannot be proven without taking the contextual settings of literacy(ies) into account. In conclusion, then, it is literacies that are each an "intrinsic dimension" (44) of "an identifiable set of socially constructed practices" (58), and which are dependent upon central, external influences that develop and shape how, why, when, and where they are implemented.
Through the lens of this Ideological Model, Lankshear looks at patterns of literacy in Graff’s study, recorded in The Literacy Myth. The students in the study (from schools in 19th century Ontario) were shown to have achieved a "low quality" literacy level, and that this "uncritical literacy" was dominant throughout this particular society during this time. In addition, there was no prevalent demand for a higher level of literacy - "the culture simply did not require it" (61) - and this overall social response, among other factors, had a direct effect on the diminished role literacy instruction played in schools.
Lankshear then outlines the two competing models of "functional" literacy. The "offical" model emerged as a response to high adult illiteracy rates, and defines "functionality" as "essential knowledge and skills in reading, writing, and communication required for effective functioning in society" (62) - an attribute acquired through situation-specific tasks, and one that ideally promotes individual growth and allows for meaningful social interaction. However, as Lankshear notes, the standards set for "functionality" within the Official Functional Model are low; to be "literate" in this sense actually "comprises a minimal, essentially negative, and passive state" (64), who are merely taught to "cope" with their world, rather than effectively interact and contribute to it. Since the focus is on being able to cope and follow, there is little or no room for developing the ability to achieve and lead. Alternately, the "optimal" model of functional literacy is Lankshear’s revision of the flawed Official Functional Model; it empowers the individual by addressing chief questions of functionality ("functional for whom?", "for what?" and "in what ways, or by what means?" (67)) and follows Freire’s methodology of "reflection and action" (69). Acquired mechanical writing skills are a reflection of an "expressly ideological context" (70) which stimulates the development of a critical literacy. It is this type of ideal literacy, in turn, that enables individuals to transcend merely being able to "cope and accommodate" with a "ready-made world", and instead gain personal, creative abilities to "create history and culture" (69), greatly contribute to their respective societies, more fully realize their potentials as equal human beings, and break free of potentially oppressive power structures.
Likewise, Walter Ong argues against the notion of literacy as simply a mechanical skill that is materialized after "writing takes possession of consciousness" (19). To view literacies in this manner objectionably disregards the natural mental processes that initially, and most importantly, shaped them. In Ong’s terms, functionally literate individuals have "interiorized the technology of writing so deeply that without tremendous effort we cannot separate it from ourselves or even recognize its presence and influence" (19). By contrast, the consciousness of the "oral world", which relies on "sounds, events, and evanescences" (20) rather than fixed, written letters and words, is not bound by the image of script. Nevertheless, Ong states, writing was an "invaluable intrusion" (21) in the ancient, oral-aural world.
Ong draws parallels between Plato’s argument against writing and the more contemporary complaints against computers. Plato’s version of Socrates argued against writing, claiming that (a) writing is "inhuman and artificial", a process that is ultimately fake in nature; (b) the text itself is unresponsive and "dead"; (c) writing destroys the memory and increases dependency on external sources (texts), and this diminishes the capacity of the mind; (d) writing is passive and defenseless, controlled and final, and exists independent of any struggle, unlike effective oral speech. In much the same manner, computers are viewed as the "external, alien technology" of our present times. Because we are so far removed from Plato’s era - and have had sufficient time to fully interiorize the process and nature of writing - we easily forget that it, too, is a technology, an advancement that subsequently initiated dynamic changes across all developing societies. Ong uses the writing/computers analogy to illustrate his argument in favor of an aspect of genuine functionality - writing - in literacy. He also turns many of Plato’s points about writing into ironic paradoxes which work in favor of it. While writing may be "dead", it is its stationary nature which allows its endurance and recurring "resurrection into limitless living contexts by a limitless number of living readers" (22), thereby outliving the momentary spoken word. Writing is "artificial", but this is a compliment; its artificiality is a means by which consciousness may be enhanced, transformed, and raised; in addition, the alienation of writing from the "natural" realm is, Ong argues, "essential for fuller human life" (23). While writing ties ideas together, it also has the powerful ability to separate, divide, and distance (24). The benefits of such phenomena are numerous: (1) by separating the "known" from the "knower", objectivity is encouraged and personal knowledge is developed (25); (2) separation allows interpretation and data to be kept apart, thereby allowing different analyses of any text to stand on their own merit; (3) distance dictates that visual space is emphasized over but co-exists with the oral-aural quality that inevitably occurs with words; (4) the distancing of word from natural existence, means that the context of a written text is its words - in contrast to speech, which is limited by physical contexts; (5) the result of words being defined by the context of other words, be means of the initial separation [mentioned in (4)], is that the meaning of each specific word is amplified; (6) writing separates the past from the present, thereby portraying the progression of time; and (7) writing separates numerous aspects of society, which leads to new awareness, novel ideas, and a more profound understanding that can be meaningfully "integrated into the human lifeworld" (27).
Ong’s argument presents writing as a means of empowerment that activates, restructures and enhances individual consciousness, much like Lankshear’s fundamental notion of the "optimal" functional literacy model - that the achievement of a desired, critical literacy is synonymous with a heightened personal consciousness, raised through reflection, which in turn leads to action and positive change. However, Ong presents writing as a tool - a "technology" - that exists in autonomy after it is channeled into textual form from the pinnacle of individual consciousness. Ong implies that once it is on paper, the written word is independent of any external contexts - such as social or cultural - and that such independence allows for potentially limitless interpretations and usage. Contrastingly, Lankshear’s ideal literacy is rooted in social constructs and behaviors - and is determined and developed by the very same (and numerous) external contexts that Ong’s concept of writing is deemed free from; it is a powerful product of society rather than a separate entity.
(Whew!!)
Personally, I disagree with many of Ong’s points. Writing does restructure thought, but it’s not always positive - I think that most of the time, something is lost in translation when an idea is transferred from the spontaneous, imaginative mind to the formal, inert paper. To this end, I thought that Ong’s argument that writing delegates more power to individual words (because they rely solely on one another for context and meaning) than oral speech was unconvincing - orality guarantees that we hear every word, and every inflection, but in reading written texts we can sometimes accidentally overlook words, important and insignificant alike. And, while written texts definitely have the advantage of endurance over time, the character of oral articulation - despite its fleeting nature - is still more potent, and therefore more memorable. Ong calls writing an "autonomous discourse" that "cannot be directly questioned or contested", but this can only be true if we accept that writing is independent of time, place, and interlocutor. We can very effectively receive and internalize meaningful information without a speaker, but the role of authorship is, I think, much more significant than Ong implies; especially in the present day, the notion of "authoritative, reliable sources" - at which the author is central - is crucial. I think writing is always situated within a (or several) relevant context(s) beyond the scope of the text’s words, and, like an oral utterance, it needs to be analyzed within these specific contexts. It kind of goes back to Lankshear’s idea that there are "literacies" that evolve from social systems. In the same manner, writing(s) are responses that emerge from specific framework, and so to fully understand each response, we need to examine the contexts that have helped produce them.
I also think that Ong (without foundation) diminishes the intellectual importance of oral cultures - he seems to imply that those societies which are primarily oral-aural based aren't as capable of analytical thought and don't have as great a capacity for profound, heightened consciousness than do communities that are greatly advanced in writing. In the end, the essence of writing is still rooted in surrounding experiences.
