More on language, literacy and social change

I am amazed by the wordiness and deliberate obtuseness of what these language instructors have to say, and their effort to make literacy instruction yet another example power in society being used to oppress whatever they want to define as a victim group. The last poster referred to the "irrefutable" arguments of some academic arguing that literacy is somehow subjective and only to be viewed as part of  a power relationship, or something. These people do not seem view their actions as an abuse of power as they try to  impose an ideology on people who really just want to learn a language, or how to read. This is where our tax-money or contributions to fighting literacy end up.

Here is what I said and some comments from this discussion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If critical thinking means anything it means not accepting arguments or dogma as irrefutable. To me literacy, the ability to read, is not a primarily a technology nor an ideological tool. It is a skill that all of us are capable of developing. Reading means to access another language, one that is written in code, as opposed to being only available via sound.

Literacy can be used to promote ideologies, but then so can the spoken word.  Obviously many, if not most of the participants here, would like to use literacy to bring about a certain kind of social change. Obviously missionaries use literacy education in the same way, as a means of promoting their religion.

This all works, because most people see the ability to read, for themselves and their children, as inherently important, something that expands their horizon, and yes, increases their power, regardless of the kind of society they live in. This desire is so universal that it cannot just be heaped on to the pile of all the bad things that many would like to ascribe to modern "western" society.

Barack Obama is powerful. If he could not read well, very well, he would not be where he is. He would not be powerful. Not everyone can be Barack Obama, but everyone can aspire to.

The choice of what to do with literacy should be left to the learner, not the teacher. The discourse I hear at this discussion suggests that literacy is not a neutral skill to be taught, but a trojan horse for a more far reaching social agenda. I, for one, am totally opposed to this idea and as a tax-payer would not support literacy initiatives that are imbued with this ideology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here was a response.

I guess you left out the real big part of learning to read. The skill is not complete without understanding what you have read and internalizing the text. Here is where critical thinking comes on to the stage!!!
As beginners, I guess surface-meanings of text can only open (or allow you gain access) at a very limited level and what happens to the deeper meanings wherein lies the epiphany?

The issue of social change and its definition is because we now use it in its shorter form. Socialized change carries the weight of the intended meaning. Change that is collectively agreed and executed by majority of those in any community is what I think most of us have in mind.
The change leads to transformation and a desire for more changes. Socialized changes are implicitly cultural and political. Once a people can move from 'how life is' to 'how life ought to be'...then change is inevitable considering that all things are equal. There are times when changes (or what a social change agent) may term progress is not beneficial to the community. If you do not mind let me detain you with a very practical example narrated to me by Dr. David Atte. He told us of an Agricultural community that accepted a new hybrid crop which was high yielding. The got more money but the crop did not have the characteristics that met their taste. They said they had full pockets but empty stomachs. Who can guess what the farmers did to the new crop?
What lessons can we draw from changes that look like what the people wanted? Is there a need for social impact analysis? Is literacy always desirable? What do a people lose in terms of memory once they learn to read, write, and forget?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

and my response

I feel that it is the right and privilege of readers to misinterpret, partly understand or interpret in their own way, what they read. I see any effort of the teacher to impose a certain "correct" internalization of the text, analysis or other elements of "critical thinking" as a possible disturbance of the pleasures of discovery through reading. The definition of what is a superficial or deeper meaning is subjective.

Nor is it necessarily the case that a literate person will better understand the advantages of crop choices than an illiterate person, to use this example, nor is it even likely that the literacy instructor would be a more authoritative resource in this regard than the farmer.

Comments

[Roberta]

Wow! This really got my blood boiling!!! To think that people believe that literacy/Literacy can be viewed as an unnecessary skill is ridiculous and smacks of a form of elitism which wants to put us back into the Middle Ages.

The invention of the printing press was one of the greatest influences for change for mankind because it allowed ideas of freedom and possibility to be readily available to the common man. When people were given the opportunity to learn to read, they realized that there was more to their lives than servitude.

Why do you think that slave owners were so set against their slaves from learning to read? ... Because knowledge is power and would make them more discontent with their lot and would make them equal to their owners. Afterall, most of the slaveowners felt that slaves were something less than human and if their slaves could read, it would mean they were human beings.

Living in Mexico has brought much of this home to me. There is very little culture for reading here. So many older people here are illiterate because they did not have the opportunity to go to school. One would think the desire to learn to read would encourage people to read for pleasure, but it has not. Even University professors claim they do not like reading!

There is currently an illiteracy rate of around 11%, if my sources are correct, much of it in the indigenous population.

Does this affect the people and the country?

I think we would have to say a resounding YES! When people are not exposed to different ideas, they do not have the opportunity to grow intellectually and therefore cannot make choices based on their own interpretation of various opinions on a subject.

This is where reading and critical thinking come in. As teachers we must encourage our students to learn to read and in doing so, learn to think and express their thoughts. Regardless as to whether their opinions have validity in our minds, we must validate them as opinions. We must also keep asking them why, until they find the roots of their reasoning and interpretation. We might learn something!

However, teachers are human and are products of their society. Therefore, in Mexico, public school teachers do not encourage their students to read or to think. They teach them only the basics of reading and for the most part are disinterested in literature and pass this disinterest on to their students, which is compounded by their parents' disinterest. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but too few and far between.

Today, we might say that with the proliferation of the media, people don't need to learn how to read. It is to our detriment if we fall prey to these thoughts. If anything, the necessity of reading and writing is even more important today to allow our descendants to be able to formulate their own ideas and retain their freedom.

[Rollo]

What bothers me is that these "educators" are hijacking a term: Critical Thinking. When I was in school it referred to the study of informal logic. Critical Studies, on the other hand, is something the Frankfurt School developed to bring down western society.

[Katie]

Steve, who is it that wrote this?

"I guess you left out the real big part of learning to read. The skill is not complete without understanding what you have read and internalizing the text. Here is where critical thinking comes on to the stage!!!"

What a pompous, arrogant thing to say. This is a person teaching English as a second language? Does this person not realize that this language learner probably already has complete thoughts, already in his or her native language, and doesn't need to learn how to think again?

Do language teachers assume that language learners are devoid of thoughts of their own?

Eeeeeeeeewwwwww.

When I was in school, critical thinking meant creating a hypothesis, exploring all sides of an argument, and drawing a conclusion. I don't know what it means today, though.

Separate story but related, twenty years ago, we had a teacher's strike, so a bunch of professors from U.C. Berkeley came in to substitute, which at first seemed cool, until I realized that all they wanted us to do was teach us how "to think". Forget learning actual useful information. Now we had to debate philosophical issues. The class that stands out was about involuntary drug testing at certain jobs, and why it's an infringement of our basic constitutional rights. For three days, we debated with our "professors" about this, in a home economics class. The professor wasn't even interested in hearing a student's opinions, he wanted to win the debate, and this was all under the guise of "higher learning." He was "challenging" the student to formulate his ideas. He was teaching him how "to think". I just wanted to learn how to make pancakes!

[Steve Kaufmann]

Katie,

It is pretty bad, I agree. They assume that an ESL of literacy learner cannot think without the help of their ESL teacher. They are always looking for the political angle.

[reineke]

Comic relief

http://www.hekaya.de/txt.hx/wie-eulenspiegel-in-erfurt-einen-esel-in-einem-alten-psalter-lesen-lehrte--sage--eulenspiegel_29