So I have to start off this week’s post by saying that I’m really glad that I decided to read Words at Work and Play by Shirley Brice Heath. If anyone wants to dive further into the complexity of literacy as a socially construct ideal, then this book is right up your alley. From what I’ve gathered so far, this book is a collection of stories illustrating how different sponsors, social norms, economic restrictions, and the twist of fate plays into how the book’s characters (both adults and children) build specific types of literacy and language. From book clubs to 4-H, theater groups to working on a ranch, this book gives the reader a wide variety of challenges that every day people face that either become hindrances of literacy, or motivators.

We discussed a few interesting aspects of our book on Thursday. This included the idea of how people thrive when they have attained a “multi-lingual literacy”. One story discusses Jerome, a young boy who was separated from his mother at a young age and worked his way through the system only to end up in Chicago where he was taken in by Tia Maria. It was here that Jerome not only became involved in theater and the arts, but also became fluent in Puerto Rican Spanish. This opportunity opened up a whole new world of oral literacy for Jerome, and ultimately contributed to Jerome’s career choice. Our group discussed whether or not being bilingual can open doors in terms of new opportunities for gaining a multitude of literacy’s that isn’t accessible to those who only speak one language.

Another concept that we found interesting was the idea of self-sponsorship. Jerome makes the decision to leave his current situation (a series of unsuccessful foster homes) and moves to Chicago in order to create a better life for himself. Lisa, a single mother of two boys, decided to better her life after her divorce. She started in community college, where she learned the meaning of a “syllabus”, and worked her way through school until she obtained a Master’s Degree in social work. Throughout this class, we have talked about the importance of sponsorship in terms of institutions, teachers, mentors, etc. But we have neglected to talk about the importance someone saying “I’m tired of the situation I’m in; I want to change it”.

As I navigated through the book, the following quote really stuck out to me:

“Children master the miracle of human language, so long as they are neurologically sound, their physical needs are met, and their caregivers give them modicum of consistent love and respect, as well as give-and-take talk and shared action” (66).

It’s very true that there are an infinite number of sponsors that help us shape our literacy practices, but I can’t help but feel that it is our caregivers who have the greatest influence on our literacy development. The books shows how parents who interacted with their children by asking them about their day, their activities, who their friends were, where they were going…basically the ones who engaged with their children were the studies that showed the most promising and successful literacy outcomes. It makes me think that literacy development isn’t just about engaging in social activities every day, but it’s about people who are willing to engage back with the learner.

For some reason, when reading this weeks article I kept thinking about the videos below, (especially in terms of semiotic systems)

Radiolab: Moments

Radiolab: Words

The concept of “autonomous” versus “ideological” literacy was a very complex and interesting topic. The idea of “autonomous” literacy is the idea that there should be a singular foundation for literacy imposed on all nations/cultures/societies/etc. by the “super power” literacy. Basically it’s like the colonialism of literacy. “Oh, you have a savage literacy mindset, so we (westernization) are going to come in and show you the right way to be literate”. Street states that the purpose of autonomous literacy is to “[introduce] literacy to poor, ‘illiterate’ people, villages, urban youth, etc.” which will “have the effect of enhancing their cognitive skills, improving their economic prospects, making them better citizens, regardless of the social and economic conditions that accounted for their ‘illiteracy’ in the first place” (77).

This model of literacy is mindboggling and completely negates the importance of cultural significance of literacy. I understand the idea of having a “literacy foundation” and how that will make this whole concept of literacy that much easier, but let’s face it, when has something worthwhile been easy. This also goes against basically everything that we’ve read thus far this semester, which has all talked about how literacy isn’t built in a linear fashion, but is constructed through sponsors, social influences, cultural and economic necessities, etc.

“Ideological” literacy is described as “autonomous” literacy’s polar opposite. This literacy “offers a more culturally sensitive view of literacy practice” (77). While autonomous literacy dealt with the “super power” of literacy, ideological literacy embodies everything else (essentially). However, while ideological literacy may seem like a more well rounded and accepting model of literacy, it has it’s downsides as well. For instance, our group discussed how difficult it would be for a teacher to have to be specially trained based on the needs of a specific community (and for every community that teacher taught in after that). What are group ended up agreeing on is that there needs to be a marriage between the two models that embodies both the literacy needs of a community, as well as a literacy foundation. However, even this can be argued against. I believe that the community must decide which type of model they wish to follow, or how much of each model they wish to adopt.

When watching the Mike Wesch video, I couldn’t help but wonder if the internet could be considered the link between these two models. Through digital space we can find both local and global information. We can communicate with friends who live across the street, who live on the other side of the world.  Content on the internet can be viewed in a variety of ways, whether it’s a youtube video, a news article, aTED talk, a blog, a tweet, a status update…the list goes on and on. The point is, if we want to talk about New Literacy Studies, we need to talk about how digital culture is helping shape literacy as we know it. The real question is why aren’t we using these tools in the classroom every day?

While it may sound crazy, I’ve really come to like Brandt’s idea of “sponsorship” and its influence on literacy. It has not only enhanced the idea that literacy is a social concept, but it has also made me reflect on how I have developed my own literacy, as well as how the evolution of sponsorship through technology, power, culture, economic standing, and social status will affect how the future generations develop literacy. However, it also makes me wonder about the negative affect that sponsors have on us, since it seems that the purpose of sponsors (not all but some) are to get us to that “next level” for the sake of getting to the next level, versus engaging us to develop our own literacy just for the sake of our own personal development.

One of the quotes that really stuck out to me in this article was this:

“Like Little Leaguers who wear the logo of the local insurance agency on their uniforms, not out of concern for enhancing the agency’s image but as a means for getting to play ball, people throughout history have acquired literacy pragmatically under the banner of others’ cause”(168).

Okay, so part of the reason why I liked this quote so much is because it has a baseball reference, but the other reason why I thought that it was so intriguing because it made me question why we choose to associate in certain “literacy communities”. It’s clear that we must engage in certain sponsors of literacy in order to socially navigate through life (this has been made quite clear). But what about the sponsors that we choose to engage in in order to enhance our literacy? For example, I feel that it was my choice to attend college. My parents didn’t force me; sure I felt societal pressure that I had to get a college degree in order to climb up the ladder of social power, but I still would say that it was ultimately my decision. Five years in the English Education program has given me the opportunity to interact with a wide variety of literacy sponsors, whether it was because of a job, or a class, or an instructor, or even one of my workshop students. I’ve gotten two minors in Linguistics and Spanish, a TESOL certificate, numerous scholarships, I am an International Society Member, am about to graduate with a BA in English Education…sounds like I’m giving you my resume, doesn’t it? That’s the thing though! I can’t help but ask whether or not I have engaged in all of these “literacy communities” for self improvement, or to just put one more thing on that resume so I can climb further up the ladder.

Every Christmas, Birthday, Easter, even Valentine’s day, I get a handwritten card from my grandma. I get so excited when I see her graceful handwriting gliding across the Hallmark card. And she doesn’t do these things because she must. She does them because it brings her joy to engage in this literacy practice. But how often do we actually witness people writing in a Birthday card for the simple joy of writing how you feel to a mom, dad, brother, sister, lover, etc. I personally give a little groan when I think of all of the ‘thank you’ letters I’m going to have to write after graduation! I can’t help but wonder, is the little voice in my head that says “can’t put that on a resume” holding my back from engaging in literacy practices that actually contribute to human interactions and relationships? Are we so devoted to the idea that we must gather literacy for others, instead of for ourselves? And how will this change as technology becomes more and more embedded into our culture? Is the purpose of sponsorship’s simply for climbing that social ladder instead of self development?

So, can we go back to when literacy just meant to “read and write”? That definition made my brain hurt less. No…not happening. Alrighty then.

So, what I have gathered thus far in terms of a collaborative definition of what the author’s are trying to tell us about “a social view of literacy” is this. When we think of literacy, we tend to think of it in terms of how an individual has contributed to their own literacy skills (ie. what are they reading, what types of writing do they do, etc.) However, we can’t simply look at the individual and think that they are the sole contributor to their own literacy powers. As a matter of fact, there are hundreds, thousands, if not an infinite number of contributors to one individual’s literacy. Brandt refers to these contributors as “sponsors”, which embodies all of the societal elements that contribute to an individual’s literacy.

Our literacy skills are a direct result of the societal interactions that we encounter every day. Scribner describes this as “functional literacy”, or “the level of proficiency necessary for effective performance in a range of settings and customary activities” (16). Whether you are filling out a form at the DMV, reading a street sign, or even updating your status on facebook (what Szwed describes as “public and private literacy” (425)), all of these aspects of literacy are a direct result of an individual’s needs to navigate through everyday life.

As time goes on, literacy trends and necessities alter based on our ever evolving social norm’s. While I believe that the fact that literacy is constantly being altered and refined like an evolving organism is a good thing, some people fear these changes will result in what Williams refers to as a “literacy crisis”. Yet based on the research of Williams and Lundsford, the so called “literacy crisis” is not being caused from younger generations using “lol” or “gr8” (Lundsford argues that younger generations actually can filter between academic and non-formal writing practices), but it is a direct reaction from the middle class based on the economic strains and “anxieties about status and privilege” (Williams, 179).

Alright, here’s the short version. To be literate does not simply mean to be able to navigate through academic institutions, job applications, and election ballots. It means being able to function in everyday life, and we learn this by interacting with a multitude of “sponsors” every single day. However, literacy is constantly changing, which freaks the older generations out. But this does not mean that we are becoming an illiterate society. No, the freak out is due to the fact that all literacy was not created equally, or at least the accessibility to literacy isn’t readily available to all economic and social classes, which causes the middle class specifically to panic.

I really hope this all makes sense.