Gutierrez 1

Marissa Gutierrez
Nancy Roche
Writing 1010-018
11 December 2014
Arguments of Literacy
Literacy goes beyond the ability to read and write. Throughout history, those who have
possessed this ability have been seen as better human beings. Also, according to this belief,
countries with high literacy rates are better developed than others that do not posses this quality.
Literacy, in fact, is attributed with making the human being civilized, with examples including
economic development and lower birth rates. However, there is not enough evidence to support
this belief as fact. For this reason, the term literacy myth has been discussed for hundreds of
years.
For instance, contemporary U.S. schools have the effect of delivering a variety of values
and skills to a variety of people. According to a study of school tracking systems, it has been
found that race, class, or access to education has to do more with what the students career path
than does their actual intelligence or potential.
There is a contradiction between literacy myth and history of literacy. For example,
Sweden reached a high level of literate people in the eighteenth century. According to the
literacy myth, Sweden should have been able to set an example through indicators including
economic development and modernization. However, this was not the case. Sweden was
promoting the Christian faith in life through literacy, using the individuals needs to have
religion in their life. The purpose of The Church Law of 1686 was that the lower ranked people

Gutierrez 2
readwith their own eyesGods commands; but, in fact, they were seeing through the eyes of
the state church.
One person who questioned this myth was Plato. Ironically, he was one of the first great
writers in western culture. Plato believed that writing had a negative effect on peoples memory
and left them with a superficial view of knowledge. For Plato, one knew only what one could
critically and reflectively defend in face-to-face dialogue with someone else (Gee 48). Written
word cannot defend itself. It can be misused or misinterpreted and needs its writer to explain the
true meaning. Plato believed that his writing should only be accessible to a certain group of
people in his own inner circle. To him, it did not matter how well a person read or how much
effort they put in it. He believed his writingsin the wrong handscould be interpreted wrong.
He wanted people to understand only what he wanted them to know. He did not want people to
make their own conclusions, and text could not respond to its readers questions. Plato also
attacked oral culture from Greek literacy. He believed that since this form of literacy was passed
from generation to generation through stories and recounts, it could be easily altered. There was
always a possibility that it could be changed from the way it was said by its father or author.
Since it could be explained in a different way to someone who did not understand it in its
original form, poets lost some power of their own poetry. Plato wanted to make sure that a voice
was able to defend literacy. It has even been suggested that he never wrote his most important
points downonly notes to remind him to present them orally. Plato had an authoritarian view
on literacy.
Platos dilemma has not been resolved. People can read text for themselves, but authority
must ensure they are interpreting it correctly. It is clear that the individual reader does not need
to be very skilled in writing and comprehension mastery.

Gutierrez 3
There is another side of the literacy myth dilemma; the liberating side, that considers the
use of emancipatory literacy for religious, political, and cultural resistance to domination. (Gee
58). No one was more linked to emancipatory literacy than Paulo Freire. Freire thought that
literacy gave power to people by providing questions that concerned the social reality. He also
approached the concept that literacy must also consider that the reader has the ability to think
correctly. Frier looked at the listeners point of view. He believed much of what we learn is
through two-way communication, or the interaction between teacher and student. In the end, we
might say, that contrary to the literacy myth, nothing follows from literacy or schooling. Much
follows, however, from what comes with literacy and schooling, what literacy and schooling
come wrapped up in, namely the attitudes, values, norms and beliefs. (Gee 61). Literacy
associates real dilemmas. Both Plato and Freire addressed them head on, although they each had
different opinions and contrasting value systems.
Gee has done extensive research that has let us understand what The Literacy Myth really
is about. With all of this information, we can begin to see and think of literature in a new
different way.

Gutierrez 4

Works Cited
James Paul Gee. 4. The literacy myth and the history of literacy. Social linguistics and
Literacies. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2014. 47-62.