Writing for
Cognition: A Survey of the Great Divide Theory and Other Literacy Theories
Literates
have controlled legal, financial and political realms for much time; with the power
to create and write rules and laws, they have set in stone the multiple ideas
that have shaped the world as we see it today. Over time, the definition of
being literate has transformed, each change guided by those who practice
literacy imposing these literacy standards on those who exist in both literacy-
and oral-based cultures. Many theorists have developed ideas around the
benefits and changes that have occurred within literate and nonliterate
societies, bringing forth the argument that literacy differentiates, and in
some theories, makes superior, or more advanced, those who have acquired the
ability to read and write.
The
Great Divide Theory remains one of the most influential and contested theories
today. According to Jack Goody and Ian Watt, there is a cognitive separation,
or divide, between those who are literate and nonliterate. This separation of
cognition derives from the ability to manipulate, preserve, and notate
information, and results in stronger logical and analytical skills that allow
those who are literate to think more rationally. This learned ability then
translates into more powerful and more complex thought structures, exhibited in
literate societies and not in oral-dominant cultures.
In
order to gain a larger perspective of the relationship between literate and
nonliterate cultures, there must first be an understanding of what is
considered an oral-based culture. As the term suggests, oral cultures are
societies and communities who use oral-dominant strategies to give, receive and
relay information. Those in oral societies base their understanding of their
language on the experiences, stories and concrete items associated with their
ways of life. These ideas are normally passed through storytelling, song, and
repetitive rituals that assist in acculturating learners.
As
a highly contextualized form of communication, oral transference of information
requires familiarity and relationship, which becomes the foundation of
understanding one another within the community. For example, oral cultures may
have multiple words describing specific characteristics of animals, trees, or
other ideas, such as the numerous Eskimo words for snow. Since experience,
memory, and close social interactions play such a large part in oral-dominant
cultures, the necessity of tying together previous knowledge with current
situations becomes more important. These intra-communal interactions, as Goody
and Watt argue, are the basis of the individual’s understanding of the world
around them, and their memory maintains that which is only culturally relevant,
naturally forgetting that which does not lie within the parameters of cultural
values and necessities; this act of current self preservation is what Good and
Watt call homeostatic organization.
According
to Ong, “oral speech is fully natural to human beings,” therefore the
introduction of a writing system not only forces humans to think in different
ways, but it preserves ideas in time that Goody and Watts’ homeostatic
organization would naturally eliminate, given that the ideas lacked current, cultural relevance.
Ong, a supporter of the Great Divide Theory, places emphasis on memory being
the key to maintaining oral societies, and since orality doesn’t maintain
information in a tangible, concrete manner, ideas can be easily manipulated.
Ong
argues that the “term ‘illiterate’ itself suggests that persons belonging to
the class it designates are deviants, defined by something they lack” (19).
This separation of persons demonstrates more of a systematic division of
cognition, supported by those who consider themselves as the more advanced,
literate culture. Being literate causes psychological differentiation from
those who are not literate.
This
autonomous practice of literacy, coined by Street and Bruce, has dominated much
of American schooling practices, and completely decontextualizes the social
literacy practices that encompass these basic mental skills, and allow them to
be understood and relative to a set of given circumstances. This act of
decontextualization allows literacy to become easily manipulated and
standardized to promote ideas such as social progress, mobility and economic
stability. Ong supports that these social implications can exist because of the
basic literacy practices that allow a society to record information and
history, maintaining “social equilibrium” since there is an inability to simply
remove unwanted information that is relevant to the growth and development of a
society.
Contrary
to the Great Divide theory, based on cognitive differences, there are also
several literacy theories that argue that literacy is more of a social
practice, and that any differences reflected are results of the various
divergences of receiving and giving information.
Scholars
such as Deborah Tannen argue against the cognitive divide and stress the idea
that there are many factors that differentiate the written and spoken
discourses. In her 1982 essay “Oral and
Literate Strategies in Spoken and Written Narratives”, Tannen writes that
“non-autonomous language purposely builds on interpersonal involvement and
triggers emotional subjective responses, demanding maximum contribution from
the audience in supplying socio-cultural and contextual knowledge” (18). Her
research supports the idea that the subjectivity of information is important,
contrary to the autonomous orientation toward literacy defined as the decoding
and encoding of texts as formal mental processes. This subjectivity then
connects literacy with a context-based situation, allowing the full process of
communication to occur. This is not unlike that which happens in oral-dominant
communities.
The
dichotomies of literate versus nonliterate, rational versus irrational, and
logical versus illogical have caused many scholars to criticize the Great
Divide Theory. Other than viewing literacy and cognition as a set of
impenetrable, immovable opposing ideas, some argue, or support the idea of
literacy represented as a continuum. Other than analytical versus synthetical
modes of thinking and communicating, there is a spectrum of representation of
each of these ideas.
Literacy
has also been defined as a skill utilized to acquire knowledge to engage in
activities required for functioning in a group or community. These skills in reading, writing and math
allow the person to build and use these literacy skills for their own personal
development and that of the community.
According to Uta Papen in her book Adult
Literacy as a Social Practice, the idea of literacy became
"increasingly tied to economic considerations" and literacy
"became identified with the skills needed in the context of employment and
economic development” (9).
Her
approach to literacy differs from the idea of a logical and analytical
separation of development, but sees the ability to decode texts as a means to
participate in daily contexts and access information. Functional literacy views the practice as a
neutral set of technical skills and addresses little with culture and society.
The basis for this model lies with a lack of literacy skills and this deficit
can be resolved through providing specific education (such as literacy and
numeracy) that target these deficits and provide instruction for workplace
training and skill building for the greater society.
Another
influential approach to literacy is the concept of Critical literacy, an
approach associated with Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator who argued that
literacy was not confined to simply decoding texts for information, but a means
to become informed and make societal change.
As Papen describes, this approach helped participants "understand
the world in terms of justice and injustice, power and oppression" (11) in
order to aim towards changing it. The critical literacy approach is different
from the functional approach in that it promotes criticism of the power roles
and the dominant culture in place of using literacy to change one's
socioeconomic circumstances.
Papen
offers yet another view of literacy named the liberal model of literacy; the
liberal tradition emphasizes individual goals and personal development. Her right
to education approach supports a nonrestrictive view of literacy being more
than just a functional set of skills to decode text to receive information and
even differentiates from the critical literacy approach to support the critique
of dominant culture. Liberal views of literacy include the daily practice of
reading and writing including that used in leisurely practices and informal
writing that may occur outside of formalized events and settings.
Others
who argue against the Cognitive Divide theory focus on how exclusive the theory
is of other circumstances that may affect cognitive development, and the
cultural values and implications when measuring cognition. Some even argue the
relatability between those who have received this knowledge through the means
of schooling versus those who receive the knowledge through more rhetorical
social practices such as singing, oral storytelling, and other forms of oral
dominant manners of passing knowledge and information. Closely tied with
cognition is memory, and some researchers say that the memory has been the
victim of moving from a oral dominant to a literate society. Despite these
arguments, there is still much research to be done.
The
use of the Cognitive Divide theory is still yet a controversial approach to
viewing literacy; although older methods and approaches to literacy were
supported by the Divide theory, many of those approaches were contested, and
are no longer in effect. Since main
focus is noting the differences in cognitive processes and a society’s ability
to analyze, it set a strong foundation for newer literacy practices to develop
and countering theories to be explored. Goody and Watt’s studies will continue
influencing the way have seen literacy practices shift, and how we argue the
advantages and disadvantages of promoting literacy; further studies will
continue shaping the world’s view on literacy abilities and how memory,
analysis, and critical thinking skills are developed.
Works
Cited
Akinnaso,
F. Niyi. “Schooling, Language and Knowledge in Literate and Nonliterate
Societies.” Comparative Studies in
Society and History January 1992: 68-109. JSTOR. Web. 18 Oct. 2013
Matute, Esmerelda, Teresita Montiel, Noemi Pinto,
Monico Rosselli, Alfredo Ardila, Daniel Zarabozo. “Comparing
cognitive performance in illiterate and literate children.” Springer
Science+Business Media March 1 2012:110-127. JSTOR. Web. 18 Oct. 2013.
Ong,
Walter J. “Writing is a technology that restructures thought.” Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Eds.
Ellen Cushman, Eugene Kintgen, Barry Kroll and Mike Rose. Boston: Bedford/ St.
Martin’s, 2001. Print.
Papen, Uta. Adult Literacy as Social Practice. New
York: Routledge, 2005. Print.
Tannen,
Deborah. “Oral and Literate Strategies in Spoken and Written Narratives.” Linguistic Society of America March
1992: 1-21. JSTOR. Web. 18 Oct. 2013.
Wiley,
Terrence G. Literacy and Language
Diversity in the United States. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: Center
for Applied Linguistics, 2005. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment