Literacy in a social context can cause problems.  Williams discusses the paranoia of the perpetual societal fear of an illiterate generation.  While these fears are ungrounded and mostly fears of change, it does raise questions about literacy as a whole.  Why is there a societal “standard of literacy” that is merely a line of average standards that are unchanging? Societal literacy is all about sponsorship, according to Brandt.  Those accessibility of local sponsors have the biggest affect on literacy in the social context.

On an individual level, I think Schribner was accurate in the assessment of literacy as power.  The elite groups of society have access to higher levels of sponsorship such as private education that sets the standard level of literacy that is not necessarily accurately applied to individuals across all levels of society.

One good example is terminology.  Doctors and medical professionals have their own terminology that basically results in their own language unknown to most individuals outside of the medical sphere.  As a medication technician, I have limited training in medical terms.  But what I find interesting is whenever I mention my job title, people automatically assume I can speak like a doctor who went to medical school for four years, when, in reality, I spent eight hours training on California licensing policies.  But it is very segregating when I am assumed to be at a higher level of medical literacy than I am, or even should be.  And when I explain to these doctors that I am not fluent in their language and merely know a few phrases, the response I get is a very pointed “oh,” and then they go back to talking to me as if I am a four year old unable to understand four syllable words.  This exclusive social literate club really creates a higher problem of individuals at different levels of literacy across all social levels.