Both of these articles were a nice break from the recent apocalyptic rants about how we are becoming mindless, literary-imitations of what we once were. While the “We’re all gonna die!” model of writing about writing can be quite stirring, Scribner and Thompson seem to be more rational with their notions about the art of communication. Instead of thinking of the issue of literacy change as good to bad, they exude the philosophy of apples to oranges. Nevertheless, there was still an aim at finding the meaning of good literacy with these two optimists. The meaning was merely more flexible. I interpreted the two articles main focus was not about how we communicate but the simple question of, “Are we communicating?” The literacy as adaption metaphor is about survival, which to me means sustainable interaction: communication. The literacy as power metaphor describes our ability to advance our selves and families, claiming our place in the world: communication. Last but not least, literacy as a state grace defines literacy as a way to prove yourself a valid source to learn from: (drumroll please) COMMUNICATION. Thompson’s article about writing’s new relevancy in modern day is due almost exclusively to its social uses. Therefore, I will have to side with the optimists. Like any art form, writing changes. Change is good. Change means that there is more to experience. As we’ve discussed in class, writing is not merely about teaching, but also about learning and relearning. As long as people are still striving to become part of their environment, either subdued or empowered, the very fact that writing gives humans a way to find their place in the world is an amazing use that I want writing to serve
"The soft minded man always fears change." -MLK
Yes! thank you, communication is the perfect word to describe this. I kept thinking that these writers weren't debating the black and white definition of literacy but something more. Like what comes from reading and writing. and that's it, communication.
ReplyDelete