Brooklyn: One Ring to Control Them All

Out of everything I read in Hamilton’s ethnography, the one thing that stood out to me the most was probably the most basic principle of all. She says “It is important to stress again, that literacy events are just the tip of the iceberg; literacy practices can only be inferred from observable evidence because they include invisible resources, such as knowledge and feelings; they embody social purposes and values; and they are part of a constantly changing context.” With this being said, I believe this is the most important part because it teaches you that everything you see, touch, hear, and feel means something to different people all over the world. As an example, Christians wear crosses on their bodies in many different ways, but to people who are not Christian, it is just a symbol that doesn’t have any value or meaning to them. It’s just another common sight.

The image of literacy that I chose to use was the wedding ring. I know, when people see a wedding pretty much everyone automatically things of being married because it has the title “wedding” right in the name. But often, that’s not the case at all.

Like I said before, when I see a wedding ring, I instantly assume it’s because he/she is married or about to be. Many times does it happen though that people wear wedding rings for other motives. A person might wear a ring because they just want to go to a bar without having to get hit on by some people, so they use the ring as an excuse to get out of having a conversation they don’t want to have. Or who knows, maybe it’s the opposite and people wear a fake wedding ring to give a false sob story to some person about being widowed to try to have someone feel bad for them and want to hookup with said fake widow. Whatever the reason for people wearing the wedding ring, my point is that even though people can observe your ring and believe that you are a married person, you can never fully be correct because they, among other things, have “invisible resources.”