It has become fashionable to talk about "post-literacy" especially in the last decade. Those of us who find language and the written word important are rightly appalled, frustrated, shocked, and scornful of what we see happening around us. I am not here to argue that this as a phenomenon is not happening. Rather I take issue with the specific term "post-literacy". At face value, "post-literacy" must mean that we have passed through the phase of literacy, either back to non-literacy or into something else. However the term as it's being used refers to the decline of reading and writing at medium and higher levels, not the complete loss or absence of understanding of the written word. We know this because the people we jeer on as being "post-literate" are all on their phones every day and can clearly navigate the text-based interfaces that apps present to them. They have not progressed to interacting with their devices purely through speech, such as a blind person would, nor has the technology ecosystem evolved for that. When glancing at the Wikipedia page on literacy, we find the usual faffing about common to social sciences: >The range of definitions of literacy used by NGOs, think tanks, and advocacy groups since the 1990s suggests that this shift in understanding from "discrete skill" to "social practice" is both ongoing and uneven. Some definitions remain fairly closely aligned with the traditional "ability to read and write" connotation, whereas others take a broader view: So we're not getting closer to defining "literacy" in the first place; what, then, is the basis for saying we've crossed into post- territory? And even if it were an inaccurate term, why should we care? I bring it up because I think "post-literacy" is a social-cultural lament that hides behind academic-sounding terminology, which ultimately ends up doing neither. If you want to sigh about how retarded people are nowadays, just say that directly. If you want to analyze literacy rates as measured by bureaucratic testing, do that. But banal exaggeration masks the real problem - a lack of analytical and critical thinking skill - that only has a rough overlap with literacy itself.
Anonymous :
15 days ago :
No.11486
>>11487
>>11486
>Written language is becoming obsolete compared to audio and video and only more so when we're devoted to making them both as digestible as possible.
There's another term that gets thrown around, "obsolete". What exactly does "becoming obsolete" mean? Fax machines are supposed to be obsolete yet are still in use around the world. Because while consuming short form audiovisual content becomes more commonplace as recreation, at the same time, navigating the bureaucratic structure is becoming increasingly more complex and time-consuming. You must be literate in order to get an identity card, to file your taxes, to get a driver's license. I had to help someone make a doctor's appointment the other week because they stopped booking appointments over the phone - a nonliterate, audio-only practice - and was only available through some god-forsaken webportal. Would someone without literacy be able to do that? Yes, you can extrapolate that a growing underclass of people will struggle and fall through gaps in the system, but that's not "post-literacy".
>I think there's definitely, to some degree, a certain mythology surrounding the past which we really haven't chosen to examine closely.
I completely agree and it's one of the thoughts that motivated me to make this post.
>When it comes to functional literacy, I'm not sure if you can immediately assume that most people will continue to maintain it.
"Functional literacy" will become the norm in society, but that's not post-literacy. I can assume that most people will continue to maintain it until we transition into an entirely live video-based mode of transmitting information, which requires a major overhaul of existing infrastructure and is unlikely to happen soon. In fact it's unlikely to happen ever because it would take more energy and effort to do so as opposed to keeping institutional inertia. "Functional literacy" means being able to identify the numbers on the paper currency used in every day life - even the most unintelligent, degraded populace will find that important enough to learn. The herd follows the system, not the other way around.
>It will ultimately be a test of whether written language conveys informatiom efficiently enough to justify its used instead of comparatively less difficult forms of communication.
This is what I am getting at. There will ALWAYS be some baseline of writing out there, even if it's just numbers on the dollar bill, or the weather report, or a Stop sign. Some have commented that lower forms of functional literacy entail not actually reading but more interpretation of symbols akin to hieroglyphics. Perhaps that's "post-literacy" but I think that's a stretch. If the point in which post-literacy is achieved is marked by a percentage of educationally deprived people sussing out the dinner menu using pictures and context clues, we've always been there. There has never been a society in which everyone was a Mark Twain erudite, there has always been a percentage of people who were illiterate.
>Anecdotally, I have two little cousins who struggle immensely with reading and writing and are years behind their expected milestones, which worries me.
This is shocking, damning, and makes me want to set buildings on fire. But it's not post-literacy. It's a failure of the system that already exists, and more importantly, a great collapse of culture and parenting. I think by continuing to hammer the point of "post-literacy" we jump across that much more salient issue. I have met illiterate farmers who are still smarter and more cleverer than a hundred iPad 12 year olds because they have their wits about them, have been raised by competent parents who prepared them to survive in their environment, and have developed their own idiosyncratic philosophy and reasoning. I'm not sure how close you are with the parents of your cousins, but if they were in my extended family I would be making the biggest stink. Well, I'm not putting the blame or onus on you. I don't have any family so I don't really know what it's like.
>Maybe by the time they grow up, though, they'll have no use for literacy and I'll be the fool. Who knows.
The system will eventually come up for a use for the coming tsunami of first worlders with neither intellectual nor practical value. It won't be pretty.
My guess is that when most people talk of "post-literacy" they're referring to the loss in hierarchy of written language compared to earlier times. Written language is becoming obsolete compared to audio and video and only more so when we're devoted to making them both as digestible as possible.
Whether our old realiance on the written language was a sign of widespread erudition or simply the default in lieu of more entertaining and accessible alternatives is up to debate. I think there's definitely, to some degree, a certain mythology surrounding the past which we really haven't chosen to examine closely. Was the working man of two or three decades ago really reading The Waste Land during his lunch breaks? I'm exaggerating, but the point stands.
This is on the cultural realm. When it comes to functional literacy, I'm not sure if you can immediately assume that most people will continue to maintain it. As far as I know, even those exams that test literacy for quotidianity are showing declining scores. It will ultimately be a test of whether written language conveys informatiom efficiently enough to justify its used instead of comparatively less difficult forms of communication. Anecdotally, I have two little cousins who struggle immensely with reading and writing and are years behind their expected milestones, which worries me. Maybe by the time they grow up, though, they'll have no use for literacy and I'll be the fool. Who knows.
Anonymous :
15 days ago :
No.11487
>>11488
>>11487
>There's another term that gets thrown around, "obsolete". What exactly does "becoming obsolete" mean?
Maybe not obsolete, but de-throned; and that's not a great name for it either. You're right that people have been playing fast and loose with terminology.
>which requires a major overhaul of existing infrastructure and is unlikely to happen soon
Good point.
>If the point in which post-literacy is achieved is marked by a percentage of educationally deprived people sussing out the dinner menu using pictures and context clues, we've always been there.
Maybe the distinction is between literacy as in understanding every single word compared to literacy as in having enough context + basic information to fill in the gaps automatically. Maybe it's why the publishing industry has continued growing; at the risk of sounding snobbish, many of the top-sellers on bookstore shelves today could probably be deprived of 3/4 or even 1/2 of the content within them and still convey the same story. That is, the understanding of these stories come from context (I am aware that I am reading a romance & fantasy story) and then filling up the gaps automatically, which we're already pretty good at as humans. Also, (correct me if I'm wrong) public schools have been teaching kids to guess what the word means rather than actually know what it means, which aids this type of way of engaging with reading.
On the other hand, I'm not sure if the same would apply to the Western canon, for example, by virtue of the complexity of the stories they try to tell. I do think the expansibility of meaning is limited by words itself, i.e. if you are limited to a simple vocabulary, you are limited to a simple story. Like if you took, say, Dickens or Hesse or Steinbeck. The most obvious counter-argument I can think of is Camus, although I'd argue the complexity comes from meta-analysis rather than the story itself. On the surface it's just about a guy who commits murder. I don't know if this makes any sense.
> I have met illiterate farmers who are still smarter and more cleverer than a hundred iPad 12 year olds because they have their wits about them, have been raised by competent parents who prepared them to survive in their environment, and have developed their own idiosyncratic philosophy and reasoning.
This is what I'm hoping will eventually happen with them. Otherwise, I don't know what they will do. They're home-schooled, and are falling behind. The shame is, the oldest is very bright, if not a smartass. I would hate to see them grow up to work a menial job because they were not given the tools to help them tap into their potential.
>The system will eventually come up for a use for the coming tsunami of first worlders with neither intellectual nor practical value. It won't be pretty.
This bodes well neither for the uneducated nor the educated. For obvious reasons for the former and for the latter, well, I don't think I'd like to live in a world like that. Which I guess is rare since seemingly anyone who picks up a book spends more time raving on about it online rather than just doing the thing itself.
>>11486
My guess is that when most people talk of "post-literacy" they're referring to the loss in hierarchy of written language compared to earlier times. Written language is becoming obsolete compared to audio and video and only more so when we're devoted to making them both as digestible as possible.
Whether our old realiance on the written language was a sign of widespread erudition or simply the default in lieu of more entertaining and accessible alternatives is up to debate. I think there's definitely, to some degree, a certain mythology surrounding the past which we really haven't chosen to examine closely. Was the working man of two or three decades ago really reading The Waste Land during his lunch breaks? I'm exaggerating, but the point stands.
This is on the cultural realm. When it comes to functional literacy, I'm not sure if you can immediately assume that most people will continue to maintain it. As far as I know, even those exams that test literacy for quotidianity are showing declining scores. It will ultimately be a test of whether written language conveys informatiom efficiently enough to justify its used instead of comparatively less difficult forms of communication. Anecdotally, I have two little cousins who struggle immensely with reading and writing and are years behind their expected milestones, which worries me. Maybe by the time they grow up, though, they'll have no use for literacy and I'll be the fool. Who knows.
>Written language is becoming obsolete compared to audio and video and only more so when we're devoted to making them both as digestible as possible.
There's another term that gets thrown around, "obsolete". What exactly does "becoming obsolete" mean? Fax machines are supposed to be obsolete yet are still in use around the world. Because while consuming short form audiovisual content becomes more commonplace as recreation, at the same time, navigating the bureaucratic structure is becoming increasingly more complex and time-consuming. You must be literate in order to get an identity card, to file your taxes, to get a driver's license. I had to help someone make a doctor's appointment the other week because they stopped booking appointments over the phone - a nonliterate, audio-only practice - and was only available through some god-forsaken webportal. Would someone without literacy be able to do that? Yes, you can extrapolate that a growing underclass of people will struggle and fall through gaps in the system, but that's not "post-literacy".
>I think there's definitely, to some degree, a certain mythology surrounding the past which we really haven't chosen to examine closely.
I completely agree and it's one of the thoughts that motivated me to make this post.
>When it comes to functional literacy, I'm not sure if you can immediately assume that most people will continue to maintain it.
"Functional literacy" will become the norm in society, but that's not post-literacy. I can assume that most people will continue to maintain it until we transition into an entirely live video-based mode of transmitting information, which requires a major overhaul of existing infrastructure and is unlikely to happen soon. In fact it's unlikely to happen ever because it would take more energy and effort to do so as opposed to keeping institutional inertia. "Functional literacy" means being able to identify the numbers on the paper currency used in every day life - even the most unintelligent, degraded populace will find that important enough to learn. The herd follows the system, not the other way around.
>It will ultimately be a test of whether written language conveys informatiom efficiently enough to justify its used instead of comparatively less difficult forms of communication.
This is what I am getting at. There will ALWAYS be some baseline of writing out there, even if it's just numbers on the dollar bill, or the weather report, or a Stop sign. Some have commented that lower forms of functional literacy entail not actually reading but more interpretation of symbols akin to hieroglyphics. Perhaps that's "post-literacy" but I think that's a stretch. If the point in which post-literacy is achieved is marked by a percentage of educationally deprived people sussing out the dinner menu using pictures and context clues, we've always been there. There has never been a society in which everyone was a Mark Twain erudite, there has always been a percentage of people who were illiterate.
>Anecdotally, I have two little cousins who struggle immensely with reading and writing and are years behind their expected milestones, which worries me.
This is shocking, damning, and makes me want to set buildings on fire. But it's not post-literacy. It's a failure of the system that already exists, and more importantly, a great collapse of culture and parenting. I think by continuing to hammer the point of "post-literacy" we jump across that much more salient issue. I have met illiterate farmers who are still smarter and more cleverer than a hundred iPad 12 year olds because they have their wits about them, have been raised by competent parents who prepared them to survive in their environment, and have developed their own idiosyncratic philosophy and reasoning. I'm not sure how close you are with the parents of your cousins, but if they were in my extended family I would be making the biggest stink. Well, I'm not putting the blame or onus on you. I don't have any family so I don't really know what it's like.
>Maybe by the time they grow up, though, they'll have no use for literacy and I'll be the fool. Who knows.
The system will eventually come up for a use for the coming tsunami of first worlders with neither intellectual nor practical value. It won't be pretty.
>>11487
>>11486
>Written language is becoming obsolete compared to audio and video and only more so when we're devoted to making them both as digestible as possible.
There's another term that gets thrown around, "obsolete". What exactly does "becoming obsolete" mean? Fax machines are supposed to be obsolete yet are still in use around the world. Because while consuming short form audiovisual content becomes more commonplace as recreation, at the same time, navigating the bureaucratic structure is becoming increasingly more complex and time-consuming. You must be literate in order to get an identity card, to file your taxes, to get a driver's license. I had to help someone make a doctor's appointment the other week because they stopped booking appointments over the phone - a nonliterate, audio-only practice - and was only available through some god-forsaken webportal. Would someone without literacy be able to do that? Yes, you can extrapolate that a growing underclass of people will struggle and fall through gaps in the system, but that's not "post-literacy".
>I think there's definitely, to some degree, a certain mythology surrounding the past which we really haven't chosen to examine closely.
I completely agree and it's one of the thoughts that motivated me to make this post.
>When it comes to functional literacy, I'm not sure if you can immediately assume that most people will continue to maintain it.
"Functional literacy" will become the norm in society, but that's not post-literacy. I can assume that most people will continue to maintain it until we transition into an entirely live video-based mode of transmitting information, which requires a major overhaul of existing infrastructure and is unlikely to happen soon. In fact it's unlikely to happen ever because it would take more energy and effort to do so as opposed to keeping institutional inertia. "Functional literacy" means being able to identify the numbers on the paper currency used in every day life - even the most unintelligent, degraded populace will find that important enough to learn. The herd follows the system, not the other way around.
>It will ultimately be a test of whether written language conveys informatiom efficiently enough to justify its used instead of comparatively less difficult forms of communication.
This is what I am getting at. There will ALWAYS be some baseline of writing out there, even if it's just numbers on the dollar bill, or the weather report, or a Stop sign. Some have commented that lower forms of functional literacy entail not actually reading but more interpretation of symbols akin to hieroglyphics. Perhaps that's "post-literacy" but I think that's a stretch. If the point in which post-literacy is achieved is marked by a percentage of educationally deprived people sussing out the dinner menu using pictures and context clues, we've always been there. There has never been a society in which everyone was a Mark Twain erudite, there has always been a percentage of people who were illiterate.
>Anecdotally, I have two little cousins who struggle immensely with reading and writing and are years behind their expected milestones, which worries me.
This is shocking, damning, and makes me want to set buildings on fire. But it's not post-literacy. It's a failure of the system that already exists, and more importantly, a great collapse of culture and parenting. I think by continuing to hammer the point of "post-literacy" we jump across that much more salient issue. I have met illiterate farmers who are still smarter and more cleverer than a hundred iPad 12 year olds because they have their wits about them, have been raised by competent parents who prepared them to survive in their environment, and have developed their own idiosyncratic philosophy and reasoning. I'm not sure how close you are with the parents of your cousins, but if they were in my extended family I would be making the biggest stink. Well, I'm not putting the blame or onus on you. I don't have any family so I don't really know what it's like.
>Maybe by the time they grow up, though, they'll have no use for literacy and I'll be the fool. Who knows.
The system will eventually come up for a use for the coming tsunami of first worlders with neither intellectual nor practical value. It won't be pretty.
>There's another term that gets thrown around, "obsolete". What exactly does "becoming obsolete" mean?
Maybe not obsolete, but de-throned; and that's not a great name for it either. You're right that people have been playing fast and loose with terminology.
>which requires a major overhaul of existing infrastructure and is unlikely to happen soon
Good point.
>If the point in which post-literacy is achieved is marked by a percentage of educationally deprived people sussing out the dinner menu using pictures and context clues, we've always been there.
Maybe the distinction is between literacy as in understanding every single word compared to literacy as in having enough context + basic information to fill in the gaps automatically. Maybe it's why the publishing industry has continued growing; at the risk of sounding snobbish, many of the top-sellers on bookstore shelves today could probably be deprived of 3/4 or even 1/2 of the content within them and still convey the same story. That is, the understanding of these stories come from context (I am aware that I am reading a romance & fantasy story) and then filling up the gaps automatically, which we're already pretty good at as humans. Also, (correct me if I'm wrong) public schools have been teaching kids to guess what the word means rather than actually know what it means, which aids this type of way of engaging with reading.
On the other hand, I'm not sure if the same would apply to the Western canon, for example, by virtue of the complexity of the stories they try to tell. I do think the expansibility of meaning is limited by words itself, i.e. if you are limited to a simple vocabulary, you are limited to a simple story. Like if you took, say, Dickens or Hesse or Steinbeck. The most obvious counter-argument I can think of is Camus, although I'd argue the complexity comes from meta-analysis rather than the story itself. On the surface it's just about a guy who commits murder. I don't know if this makes any sense.
> I have met illiterate farmers who are still smarter and more cleverer than a hundred iPad 12 year olds because they have their wits about them, have been raised by competent parents who prepared them to survive in their environment, and have developed their own idiosyncratic philosophy and reasoning.
This is what I'm hoping will eventually happen with them. Otherwise, I don't know what they will do. They're home-schooled, and are falling behind. The shame is, the oldest is very bright, if not a smartass. I would hate to see them grow up to work a menial job because they were not given the tools to help them tap into their potential.
>The system will eventually come up for a use for the coming tsunami of first worlders with neither intellectual nor practical value. It won't be pretty.
This bodes well neither for the uneducated nor the educated. For obvious reasons for the former and for the latter, well, I don't think I'd like to live in a world like that. Which I guess is rare since seemingly anyone who picks up a book spends more time raving on about it online rather than just doing the thing itself.