“I have nodes.” The Interconnectedness of Literacy

Sorry, I saw a Pitch Perfect opportunity,
and I had to take it.

Attempting to create a schema for “literacy” seemed like an overwhelming task, even within the parameters of the readings for this week. However, once Mackenzie and I started to plot out key terms and concepts, we realized some of the subtle—and not so subtle—interconnections between each scholar’s conceptions of literacy. We started by identifying what we thought were broader categories: Ideologies, Multiple Literacies, and Context Dependent. Each of these categories could be broken down into nodes to demonstrate specific concepts and terms present in the readings. For instance, Multiple Literacies would include Connects/Relations, Multiculturalism, Notions of “Text,” and Orality. Subsequently, these concepts are split into more specific key ideas. To place Johnson-Eilola, Richardson, Ohmann, Bizzell, and Brandt on our schema, we created a symbol key. It should be noted that the symbols are completely random; they in no way signify anything about the scholars or the texts, besides serving as identification (i.e. We do not necessarily “heart” Richards). The symbols populate on key terms and concepts that we felt represent the scholars’ unique versions of literacy. We chose the format of a mind map for our schema because it seemed best suiting to showing not only the similarities and differences between notions of literacy, but also because it coherently demonstrates the relationships between terms. Such a schema allows us to create a network of literacy.

It was clear to see where each of our scholar’s contributions would fit into the larger categories, but plotting the less apparent nuances proved more challenging. Personally, I was surprised to see some of the ways in which these readings overlapped.  For instance, we decided that a majority of the readings, that is four, explained the issue of literacy as related to power and control.  Richardson, Ohmann, Bizzell, and Brant all discuss how literacy is context dependent, but specifically, how that context includes power structures. For example, Richardson sees “English Only” as enforcing an oppressive power structure over marginalized groups: “language as social construction and contested phenomenon, must be policed by those who want to keep certain power arrangements in place” (99). Furthermore, she writes that language is a medium of power and control; teaching other languages, then, has to align with the government’s interests.  Ohmann, too, discusses power and control, although his argument focuses mainly on class and economic power rather than political power. Ohmann’s point of view on the context of power and control cannot be separated from ideology. He identifies several at work in his article, but points mainly at technological determinism and monopoly capitalism. Ohmann writes, “Thus, our ‘age of technology’ looks to me very much like the age of monopoly capital, with new channels of power through which the few try to control both the labor and the leisure of the many” (684). For Ohmann and Richardson, understanding literacy practices means understanding the underlying power structures at work.

Another point of interconnection we saw was that of literacy being context dependent. Richardson states, “language must be evaluated in the context of use and only makes sense when studied in the context of social and cultural practices of which it is but part” (105). She goes on to explain that literacy is a social practice that is closely related to identity and knowledge making. Ohmann similarly writes, “Technique is less important than context and purpose in the teaching of literacy; and the effects of literacy cannot be isolated from the social relations and processes within which people become literate” (687). In other words, literacy must be taken within the context of the political and class structures at work. For Johnson-Eilola, the context is mainly social. Literacy is a social act, and authorship is often multiple and dynamic outside of the classroom. Johnson-Eilola claims that our literacy practices represent a contradiction: “While we espouse social construction and cultural studies, we continue to position students as lone individuals struggling to bring forth ‘original’ texts” (461). For these scholars, the contexts surrounding literacy are not clean cut and defined. As aforementioned, for Ohmann, political power is inseparable from ideology. For Johnson-Eilola, literacy as a social practice is inherently related to the idea of multiple literacies. For Richardson, channels of power and control inevitably bring up multiple literacies and the concept of cultural literacy. Because of all these interconnections, we felt that linking nodes might be the best way to represent the complex network of literacy.

Overall, the schema was helpful for making connections between the various ideas about literacy that have been circulating. Moreover, I think it allowed me to see, at least some, of the literacy practices and thinking that we have inherited and integrated into our educational system thanks in particular to Ohmann, Richardson and Johnson-Eilola. We did run into some challenges, though. Some of the readings didn’t explicitly mention literacy, and it was up to us to sort of extrapolate how their articles may have arisen from certain literacy concepts or practices. Furthermore, we felt that sometimes our arrangement and selection was reductive. For example, a good sampling of the authors discuss the idea of multiple literacies, but they do so with varying intentions and definitions of multiplicity. We hope that our schema represents this at least somewhat accurately. Finally, I worry that while we may have “schematized” literacy for the scholars represented, the nodes we have chosen may not apply to literacy as discussed by other scholars and theorists.