Literacy According to Megan

During the past week, I have written my initial definition of literacy. I have constructed a list, although incomplete, of all of the different ways I believe myself to be literate. I then looked further into literacy by reading my classmates interpretations. Even further, I read the essay by Gee who constructed a whole social system to literacy.

When I began, I was confident in my personal understanding and definition of literacy and what it means to be literate. Each time I read another perspective, I reconsidered my thoughts, and I found my own understanding of what it means to be literate changing.

All consideration included, literacy has several components: reading, writing, comprehension, relatability, and social appropriateness. The social aspect of being literate demonstrates comprehension.

Gee's definition is centered around a person's “identity kit”. The kit being tools that you begin collecting in your home (primary discourse) and continue acquiring subconsciously (secondary discourses) through social interactions throughout your life. Gee asserts that people associate “language” with “grammar” and that simply perfecting the grammar does not mean that you will know how to use the language. He says that saying the right thing at the right time in the right place in the right way is the important part of literacy. It is functional literacy.

This understanding of literacy is far from the grammar and English education texts in which I found my self completing exercise after exercise throughout elementary and high school. Throughout my education, I've never been forced to examine that in order to demonstrate your literacy you will need to be a social chameleon.

What I am most interested in is how we (most of the population) come to know these social rules. Gee says that they cannot be learned in schools, but rather must be acquired naturally and subconsciously. If this is true, how did I come to know that I should dress up for a job interview? How did I come to know that I should shake the interviewer's hand? That I should sit up straight, speak with my best grammar, thank them at the end, and even send them a thank you letter afterward? How did I come to know that it was okay to speak to my friends in a different way than my employer? How did I inherently know that it was best not to say all of the thoughts that run through my head? And when I become a teacher, if these are all things that I cannot teach my students, should I expect them to already know these social requirements, or should I excuse their behavior thinking that perhaps they haven't “acquired” this knowledge yet?

The questions are endless. It is for this reason, that I have decided that although it is a very important aspect of applying literacy to the world, demonstration of literacy in social ways will not be part of my definition.

I am choosing to simplify what it means to be literate.

The Definitions according to Megan Eaton are:

         Literacy: the quality or state of being literate.

         Literate: the ability to read and write competently.

I believe that being able to read and write at a level appropriate for age gives one all of the prerequisite tools needed to jump aboard Gee's definition of acquiring secondary discourses. I agree with him completely that the application and demonstration of literacy in social aspects is what is most important in our lives. However, at the most basic state, being literate is your understanding and knowledge of a language. That therefore, makes grammar important, and my years of English, reading and literature classes worthwhile.

In summary, being literate (competently reading and writing a language), does not guarantee the ability to demonstrate that understanding of this language. The demonstration and social application is although important, a separate matter from being literate.