Phillips: English 540 Week Eleven Response

Literacy Facts and Fictions

James Paul Gee ‘s purpose is to complicate a “traditional” notion of literacy, one in which “literacy is treated [solely] as a mental phenomenon” divorced from cultural, historical, and political contexts (26). Instead, Gee wishes to define literacy in “social and cultural” terms that acknowledge the power dynamics involved in inequities of access for marginalized peoples (28). He suggests an ideological model for understanding literacy. “An ideological model,” Gee writes, “attempts to understand literacy in terms of concrete social practices and to theorize it in terms of the ideologies in which different literacies are embedded” (76). Gee demonstrates this model, to my mind, by discussing different cultural and historical examples that provide extrinsic evidence to back his concluding claim that, “We ought to be as interested in creating a ‘new society’ as we are a new ‘science’” (86).

Gee proposes three literacy facts. First, he notes that, “Most people in developed countries are literate in the sense that they can read” (30). Second, although many are literate, “…lots of people cannot do more difficult and sophisticated tasks with their literacy skills,” which creates a hierarchy of “service workers,” “knowledge workers,” and “knowledge leaders” (30). Third, “…home-based factors matter deeply” in terms of parental education, culture, and access to literacy materials (31). In essence, Gee claims that there isn’t a “literacy crisis.” Rather, there is a “schooling” problem. He discusses a specific instance from the National Academy of Science (1998) that failed to adequately discuss systemic inequities and instead focused too heavily on “phonemic awareness” (37).

In another example—the “aspirin bottle” problem—Gee refutes claims that all this “fancy stuff” about culture and history and so forth won’t help people who can read a warning label. By performing a discourse analysis of the warning label, Gee pauses to consider the larger issues of status quo ideologies about literacy. That is, what has led to the “legalize” on the back of the label in the first place?

Gee’s concise history of Plato, Baktin, Swedish literacy, and Freire’s “emancipatory literacy” is useful as a refresher. Gee’s point is that, “Literacy always comes with a perspective on interpretation that is ultimately political” (60). I don’t think that is a new concept, but his explanation of “Plato’s dilemma” is one we face when we consider how to interpret texts and whose perspective we choose to respect in our role as student or teacher.

Finally, Gee provides a survey of key developments born out of New Literacy Studies to ground our understanding of the ways in which sociocultural approaches to literacy study might transform the conversation. While I am on board with Gee’s assertion that, “We ought to be…interested in creating a ‘new society’,” I wonder who is going to pay for the cost of that new society and under what circumstances.