What Defines Literacy?

As I was reading Hedges' "America the Illiterate", I became more and more perturbed by the fact that he kept referring to literacy from his own standards without a base definition to build upon. He based his arguments off of statistics that were seemingly skewed, and gave off the vibe that anyone without a college degree in writing and rhetoric is illiterate. The truth is, (Hedges, I'm looking at you), is that there is no standard definition of literacy. According to Scribner's article "Literacy in Three Metaphors", the loose definition of literacy has adapted over time to the social and communicative standards of todays world. This means in the next five years the definition will change again, and then again and again after that. Because the way people read and write in the current age is so vastly different than fifty years ago, the definition of literacy has changed vastly. And it's extremely loose. As Scribner stated, one could define literacy as the ability to indulge in an ancient text, yet another may say the standard is the ability to read and write at a sixth grade level. My point is that literacy comes at many different levels, and always has. The fact is that our generation writes more than any other generation before. It may not be epic texts meant to overturn civilizations, but constant Facebook updates and conversations through text and e-mail have made our generation incredibly adapt to kairos, or assessing our audience. This is a large part of writing, thus making us that much more literate. Even if the definition of literacy is changing, Hedges' and Carr can't deny that our generation is more exposed to it than a lot of generations before us. Now, this isn't going to say that we're better writers. Facebook posts and text messages certainly aren't essays, and they don't help develop the skills that long essays require. I would say that this is my biggest worry, is that even though we're writing more, the quality of our writing is becoming subpar. We still need to be able to write at a sufficient level, good enough for papers and thesis'. But hey, isn't that what this class is for?

America the Illiterate

That was harsh. As Hedge stated the statistics of illiterate Americans, I couldn't help but feel myself falling into that category. Even as I write this post, I feel as if I must prove that I can indeed write and read at a sufficient level. I could fill this paragraph with lengthy words and wise anecdotes, however my style of writing doesn't constitute of that. I write like I talk, with essentially basic words learned in grade school. Even though I know origins and meanings of impressive words, I don't include them in my general writing because I see no place for them, or I don't take the time to find one. I didn't buy a book last year, and I don't analyze the world from a thoughtful perspective all the time. Hedge suggested that literate Americans were able to look at the world from under a microscope, past the witty slogans of brands and politicians and interpret these things or people from a cognitive standpoint. Even though I'm able, I rarely evaluate anything past the point of a quick, self-formed opinion. I feel myself slipping deeper into that category. Even though I can interpret essays and my engineering textbooks as much as necessary, I always tend to take the easy way out and either form a quick opinion or look it up on Google. This new generation is definitely growing up in the age of brevity, and according to Hedge's definition of literacy, they are also growing up in an age that is declining in just that. And even though I'm in that category, I feel like I'm a lucky one. I still read, and can hold an intelligent conversation. It just takes effort now.

Nicholas Carr's "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

As I was reading Carr's article, his found difficulty for reading long articles of text began to take form in my own reading. As I read the article, I found myself starting to skim through the passages with long anecdotes, looking for numbers and facts that seemed interesting to put in this post. And even though I consciously knew I was doing it, it seemed more efficient than reading through every typed word on the screen. I, too, have become a slave to the brevity of the internet. As Carr stated, I now have the need to find the information I'm looking for in the quick swipe of my eyes across a few lines, not digging into the well formed passages of an article. And Google has made this entirely possible, presenting us with vast tankards of knowledge that can be tapped at a click of the mouse, and facts can be found by the description under the web page, allowing us to not only avoid traditional reading, but even avoid going a step further to look at the actual source of the information. In my opinion, Google isn't making us stupid. However, I do believe that the ease of searching for whatever we want is far superior to the notion of delving into a book, starting the cogs in our mind and interpreting the information we need to know. And it's not just reading either. Carr quoted Nietzsche, who said that "our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts. Instead of meticulously scrawling out our notes on pen and paper, the computerized typing element now allows for quick, easy-flowing ideas, sometimes lowering the quality of a well thought out passage. In my eyes, and in a tone that's less demeaning, this is the essence of blogging. A quick, effortless post that sprays the thoughts of the writer over the post. And yet, my fellow blogger gives me hope. Over the two days of internet compilation, I saw a lot more reading of lengthy articles than I expected. The internet gave easy access to these writings, and allowed us to easily keep in touch with the world. So even though Google is driving us away from the traditional sense of reading and interpretation, the internet is giving us the world, literally at our finger tips. You just have to dive in.

The Art of Rewriting

As I was reading the first two chapters of Rewriting, I found a lot of good points that Joseph Harris made in terms of the way you read, write, and comment on other's writing. For example, reading is not all about just understanding the material, but about interpreting and comprehending it in your own context, which is a firm standard of academic writing. Commenting on another's writing is used in tangent with your own ideas, in a way that helps add more depth or a new perspective to the text. And while this is a very common aspect of academic writing, you must be careful to not interpret the text in a way that is what you wanted to hear in the first place. This defeats the purpose of reading another's writings, and adds no more insight to the ideas of the original author. These ideas also apply to Sullivan and the concept of blogging. Sullivan's job is to comment on events and idea's in a way that will help the public understand what's going on in a way that adds an opinion or outside view to what is going on. If Sullivan merely read the article and commented on it without any recognition of the actual article, no depth would have been added to the event. This is a crucial part of "rewriting", as Harris states. Blogging, in a sense, is a rewriting of past occurrences or ideas, read by other people who can then comment in their own way. This adds a completely new dimension of depth to the ideas.

Internet Activity Log... PART TWO

When I was comparing my own internet habits with other's, I found it interesting yet not surprising that I saw a lot of common trends. Writing didn't play an integral part in anyone's online experience, (except for this blog), however reading was essential. Which would make sense, as I see the internet as a place to absorb knowledge, taking in news articles and status updates alike, and writing, unless you're maybe debating with someone, seems to me like a waste of the vastness of the information out there. It just doesn't seem to have much of a place on the internet, which is ironic because the internet is built on words. But for the common browser of the web, writing seems to take the back seat. Sure, maybe there's a status update or a comment here and there, but the real substance that comes from searching on the web is reading articles or stories on informational sites such as CNN. But that's okay! There are people that get paid to sit there and write things that will be read, and who would there be to read them if we weren't there? There seems to be an extremely popular habit of going on Facebook for a very consistent time of ten minutes. It's a funny pattern that I've noticed... and it got me thinking. Facebook is definitely one of the most popular websites on the internet, but I don't see many people using it for more than thirty minutes at a time. It's the frequent check ins that make this site what it is. It's just a strange thought to me. Anyway, this is the averaged schedule that I've seen:

Morning: Facebook, News Articles

Midday: Facebook

Afternoon: Facebook, Schoolwork (And YouTube, this couples with homework. It's a great procrastination tool.)

Nighttime: Facebook, News Articles, Netflix or other Media Sites

Internet Activity Log

Monday

9:23 A.M. -

Facebook.com

Duration - ~ Five Minutes

Purpose: Wasting time before I had to leave for the morning.

2:10 P.M. -

Bl.com

Duration - Five Seconds

Purpose: I forgot I deleted my history so I could keep track of my sites, and it didn't autofill in blackboard.com.

2:11 P.M. -

Blackboard.com

Duration - ~ Five Minutes

Purpose: Just checking in with classes and getting homework.

Youtube.com

Duration - ~ About an hour

Purpose: I was showing a friend a song, and that turned into an hour of watching videos.

6:30 P.M.

Blackboard.com

Duration - ~ Two Minutes

Purpose: Needed to print of a lab for physics.

Tuesday

8:15 A.M.

Facebook.com

Duration - ~ Ten Minutes

Purpose: Again, wasting time before class started.

5:37 P.M.

Medicinenet.com

Duration - ~ Five Minutes

Purpose: I was wondering what the symptoms of dehydration were, for no reason in particular.

Youtube.com

Duration - ~ Ten Minutes

Purpose: Insanely bored, so I watched videos of planes taking off.

7:03 P.M.

Blackboard.com

Duration - ~ Five Minutes

Purpose: I was taking a reading quiz for physics.

In general, I'm glad to see that I don't waste as much time on the internet as I think I do. However, I was fairly busy these past two days so that probably affected the results. The amount of writing I do on the internet is very minimal, however the time I spent reading status updates on Facebook was fairly significant. But for the most part, it seems like I spent the most time reading academic material, which is good to see.

Andrew Sullivan: Why He Blogs

As I was reading through Sullivan's article, "Why I Blog", I found that a lot of his reasons for writing and publishing online were similar to my own. As Sullivan says in page 3 of his article, "Every writer since the printing press has longed for a means to publish himself and reach—instantly—any reader on Earth". Blogs are revolutionary in the way that they accomplish this, not only in an accessible and simple manner, but in a practically free manner as well. Anyone can blog, and because of this the blogging community has grown quickly and exponentially, each new blogger sharing it with their colleagues. And as the blogging community grows, so does the mass of critiques. "... before the blogosphere, reporters and columnists were largely shielded from this kind of direct hazing". The direct, often brutal reviews of anonymous readers on the internet is a different world from the "gentle nurturing of the editors" that most writers receive. It allows for quick of review of your most raw writing, since blogs often come out of a flash of emotion and aren't carefully read through. However, this quick expression of one's thoughts is another thing that makes blogging special, in Sullivan's opinion. When reflecting on reading his posts that were dated on 9/11, he states that, "there is a vividness to this immediacy that cannot be rivaled by print". This immediacy brings along with it the spontaneous, unchecked emotion that makes blogging special. Unlike revised, factual articles in a newspaper, blogs express the personal, emotional thoughts of the writer. As Sullivan puts it, " whatever authority a blogger has is derived not from the institution he works for but from the humanness he conveys". Sometimes, as Sullivan says, the brevity of a blog is sometimes more powerful than a long article, or journal. As all of Sullivan's reasons show, blogging makes for a unique experience that combines the entry-like style of a diary with the publicity of a radio cast. It's no wonder that the blogging world is exploding.