In the mid-1960s the place and meaning of the concept and the fact of literacy in the social sciences was a simple and secure one. Tied closely to the liberal, post-Englightement synthesis of modernization theory, literacy was seen as a central variable among that complex of factors that distinguished modern, developed or developing, and advanced societies and individuals, from the lesser developed areas and persons of the world. Literacy, moreover, was typically conceptualized more as an independent variable than a dependent factor. Support for this set of propositions was drawn, on the one hand, from a set of once commonsensical assumptions and expectations, rooted in a special view of the nature of (historical) development that emphasized the linearity and certainty of progress and, on the other hand, from a number of aggregate macrolevel ecological correlations that saw literacy levels relatively highly associated with many of the other indicators of social development, ranging from fertility rates to measures of economic development. Although literacy itself was at best vaguely defined and variously measured, a diffuse positivism and functionalism undergirded the prominence accorded to it in many formulations. But despite strong assumptions, there were surprisingly few empirical or critical studies. Important questions were few: expectations of literacy’s key contribution to social and economic development, political democratization and participant citizenship, widening awareness and identification, seizure of opportunities, and action orientations dominated. As such, promotion of literacy often featured as a central element in plans for the development of underdeveloped areas, especially by North American and western European social scientists, governments and foundations.
Such an understanding no longer maintains its hegemony. In fact, no central theory governs expectations about the roles and meanings of literacy, and its very nature has itself become problematic and arouses contention and increasingly critical attention. From its formerly secure status as critical independent variable, literacy is now conceptualized more as a dependent factor; the linearity of its contributions is also debated. Ironically, as the status—so to speak—of literacy as an independently determinative variable, necessary if not always sufficient, has declined, its place on the agenda of social science research and discussion has risen. There are lessons in that transformation.
Many sources account for this change. Among them are the discovery of the limits of modernization theory and the theoretical synthesis on which it was based; greater awareness of the differences (and different effects) among literacy, schooling and education—terms too often used interchangeably and confused conceptually; recognition of the problematic nature of literacy, and the conceptual and empirical difficulties that the subject represents. For example, by the 1960s, the severe problems of measuring literacy—comparing measures and resulting rates for different places and periods, and assessing associations and contributions—were frequently noted; a variety of measures and definitions, with a trend towards their inflation, proliferated. Whether literacy’s impacts were attitudinal and ideational, cognitive, skill-linked, concrete or more abstract, all-pervasive or more selective, sparked further discussion and weakened common bases of understanding. In addition, the conservative functions and consequences of literacy and, indeed, certain ‘non-effects’ received renewed attention. Empirical studies became more sensitive to weak and contradictory findings; discussions of literacy ‘gaps’ and time ‘lags’ in association with other expected aspects and concomitants of development punctuated the literature. International attention increased: from the twin sources of UNESCO’s calls for action and analysis and pathbreaking national literacy campaigns in the Third World. The discovery of persisting illiteracy in the advanced societies led to the identification of illiteracy, and sometimes literacy, too, as a social problem, and a late twentieth century threat to national security, economic productivity, national welfare and the promise of democratic life. Rapid changes in communications technology, especially of non-print and non-alphabetic forms (in contrast to the traditional bases of literacy) not only led to sometimes frenzied questions about the ‘future’ and ‘decline’ of literacy and print, but also stimulated more questions about definitions, measures and levels of individual and national skills requisite for survival and advancement in late modern societies. Whereas literacy was seldom deemed unimportant or non-consequential, or illiteracy not an obstacle or liability, its precise contributions and impacts could no longer be assumed.
The challenge of a number of revisionist ‘critical theories’ was also important. So too was the development of a historical analysis of literacy and illiteracy, much of which aimed specifically at testing the literacy—modernization linkages. In a number of careful, often statistical, studies, historians throughout Europe and North America sharply qualified traditional expectations of a series of direct connections tying rising levels of literacy to developments in societies, economies, polities and cultures. This is one area in which historians and social scientists have had much of importance to contribute to one another. In part, historians discovered relatively high levels of literacy in advance of ‘modernization’; they simultaneously located important ‘take-offs’ prior to mass or even moderately high literacy rates. Literacy’s linkages to the spread of modern attitudes and its relationship to individual advancement have been questioned. Notions of stages or threshold levels have also been criticized. Many macrolevel correlations seem to break down in disaggregated testing.
There are, however, a number of critical points at which historical and social scientific analyses reflect one another conceptually and empirically. These include the nature of literacy as a dependent variable; its dependence on context, the limits of universal impacts and generalized consequences (which have major implications for literacy’s place in social science theories); the epistemological complications of defining and measuring literacy levels at the societal plane or literacy abilities at the individual level; the weakness of the traditional literacy-illiteracy dichotomy; and the fact that changes in literacy levels may often follow from, rather than precede, basic social, economic, political or cultural transformations. Literacy, increasingly, is connected to the larger network of communicative competencies (the oral, for example), not contrasted dichotomously and developmentally from them; it is also conceptualized more as a continuous, widely varying, and nonlinear attribute. Its importance as shaper of attitudes and as a symbol and symbolic influence stands beside, in partial independence from, its role in cognitive and skill determination. To speak of literacy in the abstract is now considered hazardous, if not quite meaningless.
Among the most critical of contemporary research approaches to literacy is the emerging social psychology of literacy. Scribner and Cole (1981) document the limits of literacy by itself and the theoretical assumptions that link it universally to higher forms of thought and practice; they point towards a formulation of literacy as practice and context determined and determining. Anthropological studies have moved towards ethnographies of literacy in use and non-use (Heath 1983; Tannen 1982; Whiteman 1981). Historical studies continue their pathbreaking relevance (Graff 1979; 1981a; 1981b; 1987; Furet and Ozouf 1977). By contrast, the sociology and economics of literacy find their theoretical presuppositions and empirical methods challenged and seek new paradigms (Bataille 1976; Harvard Educational Review 1981; Stanley 1978). The future of literacy studies is an exciting and vastly important one.
Harvey J.Graff
University of Texas
References
Bataille, L. (ed.) (1976) A Turning Point for Literacy, Oxford.
Furet, F. and Ozouf, J. (1977) Lire et écrire: l’alphabétization des français de Calvin à Jules Ferry, 2 vols, Paris. (English translation of vol. 1, Cambridge, 1983.)
Graff, H.J. (1979) The Literacy Myth: Literacy and Social Structure in the Nineteenth Century City, New York.
——(ed.) (1981a) Literacy in History: An Interdisciplinary Research Bibliography, New York.
——(ed.) (1981b) Literacy and Social Development in the West: A Reader, Cambridge, UK.
——(1987) The Legacies of Literacy: Continuities and Contradictions in Western Society and Culture, Bloomington, IN.
Harvard Educational Review (1981) ‘Education as transformation: identity, change, and development’ (entire issue), 51(1).
Heath, S.B. (1983) Ways with Words, Cambridge, UK.
Scribner, S. and Cole, M. (1981) The Psychology of Literacy, Cambridge, MA.
Stanley, M. (1978) The Technological Conscience, Glencoe, IL.
Tannen, D. (ed.) (1982) Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy, vol. 9, Advances in Discourse Processes, Norwood, NJ.
Whiteman, M.F. (ed.) (1981) Writing: The Nature, Development, and Teaching of Written Communication, vol. I, Variations in Writing, Hillside, NJ.
Further reading
Baumann, G. (1986) The Written Word, Oxford.
Finnegan, R. (1988) Literacy and Orality, Oxford.
Goody, J. (ed.) (1968) Literacy in Traditional Societies, Cambridge, UK.
Graff, H.J. (1994) The Labyrinths of Literacy: Reflections on Past and Present, Pittsburgh, PA.
Street, B. (ed.) (1993) Cross-Cultural Approaches to Literacy, Cambridge, UK.
