Sunday, January 27, 2013

Literacy Within An Adapting Society


Literacy Within An Adapting Society
            Do you really believe that we are becoming illerate? Or are we just developing different methods and styles to maintain the status of literacy we’ve acquired while allowing it to adapt to modern society? Throughout the readings I’ve come to the conclusion that literacy cannot be easily defined. It holds a different value to every individual. How many hours a week do you spend sifting through your Facebook newsfeed, reading over multiple comments left on a picture of your ex? You may not be consuming the words of an award-winning novel but you’re still reading. We live in an age that feeds off of negativity. Our brains, with a little help from the media, have been wired to believe that bad news is good news.  The tiniest hint that technology is destroying the minds of society would surely have a snowball effect. I’d be willing to bet that you became so enthralled with such a story that you missed the obvious; humans have been adapting their standards and methods of literacy since the very beginning. Why would such a detrimental human instinct change now? New technologies have benefited society in such a way that allows us to be adaptable in both reading and writing settings. As the “longitudinal study of writing at Standford” showed, we are fully capable of transitioning from informal to formal (Lunsford).  Let our generation check Facebook and Blog; we may be more literate than you suspect and I’m going to prove it to you.
            I’ve watched you hunched over the computer, devouring Hedge’s words from his ridiculous article. It’s a little ironic that you’re falling into his stereotype of an illiterate American by reading his words online. Simply because you are not holding a tangible, print-based book in your hands you would fall into Hedge’s category of “the other America, which constitutes the majority, exists in a non-reality-based belief system. This America, dependent on skillfully manipulated images for information, has severed itself from the literate, print-based culture” (Hedges). Hedge’s entitlement has completely blinded his faith for America. Since our generation is surrounded by technology I suppose he would categorize our class as illiterate. Now, I don’t know about you, but I see a group of talented writers who just so happen to blog. He sees the majority of us as mindless robots that “cannot differentiate between lies and truth” and are “thrown into confusion by ambiguity, nuance and self-reflection” (Hedges). If you’re going to sit there and agree with this type of argument, you may as well delete your twitter account and start purchasing the entire works of Ernest Hemmingway, whose writing “style is simple, direct and somewhat plain” and was often riddled with grammatical errors (Cooper). Hedge’s connections with literacy and political campaigns are rather insulting to the entirety of America. You would think because of how well read and scholarly he is that he’d understand that humans have not necessarily changed, we’ve only adapted to our environment. He would also know that those who do fall under the widely accepted definition of illiterate often couldn’t help it.  Shribner asks, “Does the prevailing distribution of literacy conform to standards of social justice and human progress?” (Shribner). I would argue yes. Condemning individuals as illiterate is in fact oppressive. Schools within America are incredibly disproportioned due to tax dollars and the social status of certain areas. The small percentages of American’s that are actually illiterate are often unable to fix their situation because they do not have the means or legality to do so. If you’re going to side with Hedge’s and toss around such an oppressive word as a blanket term to describe people who interact with social media than I suggest you do some research on how different your life may have been if you were born in East St. Louis, New York.
Hedge’s need to mark this technological age as something new and frightening just goes to show how stubborn he truly is. He states, “Political leaders in our post-literate society no longer need to be competent, sincere or honest. They only need to appear to have these qualities” (Hedges). I’m sorry, I was under the impression that politician’s have always been like this. American’s wouldn’t have had so many mudslingers back in the 1800s if our politicians had been so saint-like. Granted, there will be groups of people who are gullible and easily influenced by these individuals of power but this is nothing new. Do you honestly believe that we all became sheep because of the iPad release? The possibility that we are changing the way we read and analyze a text is far more likely and agreeable than Hedge’s extremity of illiteracy.
Nicholas Carr writes about his personal experience from technology. He reflects, “My concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do” (Carr). Carr’s own narrative proves my point that our brains are constantly adapting to our environment. Can’t you see that we’re not becoming wordless savages? We haven’t lost the ability to comprehend a text we’re just changing how we access it. Technology is not some inherent evil; it’s a useful tool that has allowed us to preform tasks as ease. Just as the cavemen discovered fire, technology has allowed for “Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks” and you’re done (Carr). Think about our class; we use technology for it almost every day through the forms of blogging, looking up news stories, and reading articles. I doubt all of that time online is causing our brain to dumb itself down. Sure, we might open up a tab to check what the score for the game is…but why shouldn’t we? If the option to do so is there and we can still be ensured a solid grade I see no problem in the matter. Andrew Sullivan considers blogging to be a legitimate form of writing and expressing ideas. He argues, “writing in this new form is a collective enterprise as much as it is an individual one—and the connections between bloggers are as important as the content on the blogs. The links not only drive conversation, they drive readers” (Sullivan). I completely agree with Sullivan. Our weekly blog posts have not only fueled us to write and interact with a piece of text, but they have also allowed us to read what others have to say and gather information from their perspectives. Do you still consider us illiterate just because we’ve adapted to this new and conventional world of technology? Why I Blog also discusses the marriage between reading from the Internet and tangible text. Blogging “has exposed a hunger and need for traditional writing” (Sullivan). So if you still don’t believe me, feel free to meet up with Hedge’s at Starbucks and cry about the illiterate America over a copy of “Fahrenheit 451”.
The effects of technology have not caused society as a whole to struggle through a text, the effects have actually given us the ability to stylize, add tone, and bring our writing to life.  In the study that Lunsford and her colleagues conducted, they found that the students “were increasingly aware of those to whom they were writing and adjusted their writing styles to suit the occasion and the audience” (Lunsford). Such ability has risen thanks to our interaction with technology. We live in a world where we approach people and situations differently depending on their relationship to one another and the same rule applies to writing. In fact, “young people are for the most part aware of the context and audience for their writing- and they make the adjustments necessary to address them effectively” (Lunsford). Would you go up to your professor and hand them a beer in front of the entire class? Of course not, that would be an example of breaching formal with informal. We have the wherewithal to distinguish when it is appropriate to use a smiley face in a text and when we have to break out the semicolon.  Not only have we developed the ability to adapt to our writing audiences, but we have also developed a sense of tone in all writing pieces. Blogging “will inevitably be formed by the blogger’s personality. The blogosphere may, in fact, be the least veiled of any forum in which a writer dares to express himself” (Sullivan). I truly believe that we, as a society, have adapted to this technology and used it to our advantage. So you think we’re easily distracted? Maybe we are. However, to call a majority of American’s illiterate is offensive to people of all reading levels. As I’ve stated on my blog, As long as formal writing is taught in school and the education system reforms itself to provide sufficient means to ensure literacy I don't think we have a problem. We have the ability to switch our writing from formal to informal. As a whole, society is fully capable of grasping writing requirements for their audience. Google isn't making us stupid. Social media isn't ruining our writing. Text messaging won't make us fail our written final exam. We aren't calling our professors "bro" and inviting them to a sick party. We are a literate America simply transforming the way we write.

No comments:

Post a Comment