Scribner blog post

          Literacy as Power section was an interesting one to read. At first glance I think I agreed with the idea that literate people have more power. I mean logically that makes sense to me. However, as that section progressed it talked about people assuming “that higher literacy rates automatically promote national development and improve the social and material conditions of the very poor” essentially saying “that literacy per se mobilizes people for action to change their social reality” (19). When I first read these lines I thought I agreed with them but after reading over the whole article and really examining what I believed to be true I realized I disagreed – at least to an extent.

I certainly believe that the written word is powerful, I don’t think I would be an English major if I didn’t. I mean whether words are spoken or said they have the ability to change the world, for good or bad. I mean you can see this played out in history in movies and books; something someone’s says brings something to light or something finally clicks for someone because of something someone said or they gain knowledge and make the world better. Words and therefore literacy, at least to me, have the power to create power. But I think that relying on literacy, as the article says, to mobilize people for change just isn’t enough.

I believe that what is wrong with that idea that “ literacy…mobilizes people for action to change their social reality” is not complete, or at least it isn’t as simple as that. I think for change to occur, and even for people who are not literate to become literate there has to be a drive and want to change to be better and more knowledgeable. It actually states in the article (and not very clearly at least for me) that “movements to transform social reality appear to have been effective in some parts of the world in bringing whole populations into participation in modern literacy activities” (19). For me this is a huge point and I think the article doesn’t put it as clearly as I could at least in that sentence. Basically it says that social reform that has been effective has motivated people to be involved in more literate activities.

I know we were supposed to write about something in the article that seemed confusing to us or resonated with us and this small section did both. I have to read of this one paragraph like ten times to make sure I understood what it was saying and then it created this strange thought process for me to really examine if I agreed with it or not. So that was definitely something I didn’t think I was going to happen.