In Gee's article, he broke down literacy in terms of being able to control our discourses. He discussed the social construction of literacy and how it is not simply a matter of the ability to read and write. I found that it was extremely important to make this distinction and to recognize there are many different types of literacies. However, I feel it is also essential to acknowledge the power that reading and writing hold. As liberal arts college students taking an education course, we recognize the value in all types of literacies but the average person automatically associates literacy with reading and writing. Schools are determined to be good or bad based on their test scores in reading and writing. In my sociology course, Problems in the Natural and Built Enviornment, we discussed how many things are social constructions but that doesn't make the consequences of them any less real. A student may be literate in terms of music or social skills, but if they lack the ability to read or write, they will be significantly disadvantaged compared to students who can. Our society places different values on different types of literacies, giving agency and power to those who posess valued literacies. It makes me wonder how we can change the system; how can we make major structural changes to ensure equality.

Throughout the last two weeks, I often think of the ideas of realism and optimism. It was Pim's reading "To Hell With Good Intentions" that I first began thinking of these ideas more coherently. Good intentions can be measured through optimism and realism. There is a certain amount that outside forces can contribute to a community before changing the underlying structure of the community. In the idealistic event that this should occur, the contribution can be measured in both optimism and realism. However, as Ivan Illich implies, there are no true good intentions. There can be optimistic intentions, usually those that cause tremendous change followed by tremendous downfall. On the other hand there are realistic intentions, and those are usually the things that could be done, but are not becuase the "tremendous changes" are happening. 

In the Literacy and Development reading Pat Herbert and Clinton Robinson describe a scene from a Muslim religious tradition in which people are holding cards with prayers written on them but none of them can actually read the cards; they have memorized the prayers instead. Further investigation found that the people believed the actual words themselves to be sacred and therefore having them in their hands was important even if they could not read the words. This reminds me of my field placement in a first grade classroom. I was working with a boy struggling to learn to read. The teacher had given me a stack of books the boy had been working on all year. I let him pick which book he wanted to read. He picked it and read it better than I have ever heard him read before. He picked another and again I was impressed at how much he had improved since my last visit a month ago. I even told the teacher about how much he had grown in that time. The next week I picked the book for him. It was one I had not seen before which meant it was the most recent book he had been reading. He struggled.  He did not know most of the words, making most of them up as he went along. He even said, “I don’t know this one.” It was clear to me that he had read the other books so many times he had memorized them. I thought he had really improved his reading but in fact he had just memorized the words and so could “read” them quickly. But it made me wonder, is reading the words actually any better than simply memorizing the stories?

I was thinking last class about the necessity of literacy in the language of power (the language that those in power speak). The examples of Haitian history and of Native American control over land came to mind. "Haitian history" was originally written and claimed by the French colonizers and written in the French language that many Haitians were not literate in. Through the power of the written word, colonizers wrote the history of people, and ignored the ugliness of slavery and slaughter of native Haitians. Haitian history was not for the Haitian people and did not represent the Haitian people but rather it was for and represented the elite.

One of the most interesting parts of learning new literacies is defining all of the terms. I love that sometimes, when I’m introducing a new concept to someone, I have to dig deep into my understanding of that concept to find the most fundamental vocabulary. I love the necessity for analogy--for us to figure out how to relate new terms to those we already know. And then there are the terms that take on new meanings in different contexts.

For my Music Ed class, I am learning how to tango. I know pretty much nothing right now, and my assignment for the week is to practice walking everywhere. The tango walk has so many components that I don’t have to think about in “normal” walking--lean forward; connect with yourself, the space, the floor, the music, and your partner; extend; cover more distance; be a broom. But still, when I think about it, I am just adding to a specific definition of walking.

In looking at the tweets and conversations this week, I have made a few observations.  First off, I would like to recall the tweets regarding bridging academics and personal experiences in the classroom as a means of learning.  Something I am finding particularly useful about the Twitter is that it is allowing us to, at some extent, create these bridges. Though our experiences are held to a 140-character limit, it does allow us to bring what we observe, notice, feel, etc., in a precise moment into the classroom. Questions via Twitter also serve as a basis for further inquiry, such as the questions regarding code-switching and world-travelling. These questions, and the ones that are generated in class provide a framework and basis for thought, in and out of the classroom, leading us to form more experiences with the mindset and understanding of what we accomplish in the classroom.

At the end of class last week, I found myself feeling uncomfortable with the way the class was using the term "illiterate."  As we are all working to expand our definitions of literacy, I think it is important to keep in mind how we're using related terms.  I really like the idea that literacy goes beyond the ability to read and write to encompase having knowledge or competency in an area but does that mean that being illiterate is the opposite of that?  While I'm comfortable with the fact that I am not literate in all areas, I'm not comfortable with the idea that not being literate in an area means that you are illiterate.  I'm also interested with the connection between illiteracy and ignorance.  Are they connected?  If only in the sense that both words seem to have very negative connotations with me despite the fact that they shouldn't be neccessarily negative.  For me, ignorance is not knowing and I think given my previous definition of literacy one could say that being illiterate is not knowing.  However, I think illiterate is used in a much broader sense than ignorance.  For example, I think the way I have been thinking about the terms, one can easily be ignorant about part of a culture or lifestyle or any number of things.  However, if you are illiterate, it isn't just one part of a culture or lifestyle but its the whole culture.  I think it is easiest to understand in terms of language.

It’s interesting to see the definition of literacy develop and how they vary, whether within my own definitions, external definitions, or dictionary definitions. The definition of literacy in its most basic and most well known meaning is: “the ability to read and write”. The definition on my computer goes on to note a second explanation: “competence or knowledge in a specified area”.

My own working definition that I wrote down in class on Tuesday was, “the way we interact with one another, how we communicate and understand each other”. In a way it seems that there are two distinctive forms of “literacy”, as the ability to read and write are very specific skills, but broadening the definition to include competence in any area makes the former definition seem redundant. Part of me continues to work out a definition for “literacy” that makes sense within our discourse. But maybe it is that the class will be incorporating literacy in all its forms.

The revised definition that came out of our small group discussion was: “a way to manipulate secondary discourses to give one agency”. In a way it reverberates my original, working definition but also expands on it. This definition also seems a bit removed from that which sees literacy as simply “the ability to read and write”, all of which serve to complicate and clarify my understanding of literacy as we discuss it in class.

Since my post last   Social skills, cognition, and emotional intelligence fall under the category of social literacy.  Social literacy can be associated with an individual’s ability to connect with the people around them. Would someone be considered socially illiterate if they cannot express their ideas in a way that people can understand?  I don’t think being coherent and being literate are the same terms.  I think someone can completely understand what is going on around them but they cannot express their ideas because they are incoherent.  I think that using literacy as an umbrella for multiple capabilities is limiting in a way.  By saying someone is illiterate socially or musically, it promotes the assumption that they have absolutely no skills in that area.  When the words literate or illerate come to my mind, I assume black and white.  Either someone is completely capable, or completely incapable.  There is no grey area.  That is why I don’t think describing someone as socially illiterate is an appropriate term for a person with some sort of social disorder.