See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225158126

Beyond definition: Central concepts for understanding literacy

Article  in  International Review of Education · January 2008

DOI: 10.1007/s11159-008-9104-1

CITATIONS READS

32 538

1 author:

Judy Kalman
Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute
60 PUBLICATIONS   746 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Los profesores y las TIC: La apropiación del conocimiento en la práctica. View project

Los lectores en la ciudad View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Judy Kalman on 19 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Review of Education (2008) 54:523–538 Ó Springer 2008
DOI 10.1007/s11159-008-9104-1

BEYOND DEFINITION: CENTRAL CONCEPTS

FOR UNDERSTANDING LITERACY

JUDY KALMAN

Abstract – Direct definitions prove deficient for understanding the complexity of lit-
eracy. To examine the use of reading and writing, how it is used, and how it is
appropriated, this paper looks at literacy in terms of mediation, multiple literacies,
context and participation. A main argument is that access to literacy is accomplished
through interaction with other readers and writers and the appropriation of discourses.
These discussions articulate further considerations that explore the consequences of
literacy, how it is learned, and the notion of practice. It concludes with a look at some of
the practical implications of these conceptualizations.

Résumé – AU DELÀ DE LA DÉFINITION : CONCEPTS CENTRAUX POUR

COMPRENDRE L’ALPHABÉTISATION – Les définitions directes se montrent
insuffisantes pour la compréhension de la complexité de l’alphabétisation. Afin
d’examiner l’usage de la lecture et l’écriture, comment on l’emploie, et comment on se
l’approprie, cet article considère l’alphabétisation en termes de médiation, d’alphabé-
tisations multiples, de contexte et de participation. Un argument principal est que
l’accès à l’alphabétisation se fait par l’interaction avec d’autres personnes lisant et
écrivant et par l’appropriation de discours. Ces discussions forment l’articulation de
considérations ultérieures explorant les conséquences de l’alphabétisation et comment
elle est apprise, ainsi que la notion de pratique. L’article conclut avec un regard sur
certaines des implications pratiques de ces conceptualisations.

Zusammenfassung – JENSEITS DER DEFINITIONEN: GRUNDKONZEPTE

ZUM VERSTÄNDNIS DER ALPHABETISIERUNG – Direkte Definitionen haben
sich als untauglich zum Verständnis der Komplexität von Alphabetisierungsprozessen
erwiesen. Dieser Artikel untersucht die Aneignung, die Verwendung und den Umgang
mit Lese- und Rechtschreibfähigkeiten unter Berücksichtigung von Mediation, multi-
pler Alphabetisierung, Kontext und Partizipation. Die Hauptthese ist, dass der Zugang
zur Alphabetisierung vor allem durch die Interaktion mit anderen Lesenden und
Schreibenden sowie durch die Teilhabe an bestimmten Diskursen erreicht wird. Im
weiteren stellt der Artikel Überlegungen zur Auswirkung der Alphabetisierung, zu
Durchführungsweisen und Praxiskonzepten an und schließt mit einem Blick auf die
praktischen Implikationen der vorgestellten Konzepte.

Resumen – MÁS ALLÁ DE LA DEFINICIÓN: CONCEPTOS CENTRALES PARA

COMPRENDER LA CAPACIDAD DE LECTOESCRITURA – Está comprobado
que las definiciones directas no son suficientes para comprender la complejidad de la
capacidad de lectoescritura. Con el fin de examinar el uso de la lectura y la escritura, el
modo en el que se la usa y cómo ha sido apropiada, este trabajo enfoca la capacidad de
lectoescritura en términos de mediación, múltiples alfabetismos, contexto y participa-
ción. Uno de los argumentos principales es que el acceso a la lectoescritura se logra
524 Judy Kalman

mediante la interacción con otros lectores y escritores y la apropiación de discursos.

Estas discusiones expresan consideraciones adicionales que exploran las consecuencias
de la capacidad de lectoescritura, de su adquisición y de la noción de práctica. Concluye
con una mirada sobre algunas de las consecuencias prácticas de estas conceptualizaci-
ones.

Literacy and its consequences

Several authors have pointed out that literacy is hard to define, noting
that direct definitions prove deficient for understanding its complexity
(Baynham 1995; Graff 1987; Kalman 1993). In harmony with this line of
thinking, this paper looks at literacy in terms of mediation, multiple litera-
cies, context and participation in light of discussions pertaining to the con-
sequences of literacy, how it is learned, and the notion of practice. Rather
than simply comparing different definitions of what it means to know how
to read and write, questions are raised about how concepts and issues are
used and related. Given the depth and breadth of the field, I have tried to
articulate those ideas that have been the most useful to me in my own
work rather than present an objective recounting or exhaust the ongoing
theoretical discussions.
It is believed by many researchers and policy makers that literacy is the
starting point of development (Pattison 1982; Street 1984). For centuries
(Graff 1987), some have considered reading and writing key for achieving
democracy, economic growth and stability, social harmony and, most
recently, competitiveness in world markets. School has been promoted as the
institution responsible for the education of new readers and writers who,
according to this view, will learn the basic skills necessary for entering the
work force, vocational or professional training and, eventually, placement in
the job market (Levine 1986).
 Beyond Definition 525

Besides employability, there is a long-standing conviction that literacy will

promote personal improvement and enlightenment as well. For example, John
Eaton, the Commissioner of Education in the United Status in 1882 addressed
the members of the Union League Club in New York, pitching for money to
finance public education. He argued in favor of the use of federal funding to
develop public education in the territories, the south, and in some of the
major cities. In his presentation, titled ‘‘Illiteracy and its Social, Political and
Industrial Effects’’, he posited that it was necessary to ‘‘ponder the evil caused
by illiteracy’’ and work towards its eradication, noting the following impor-
tant effects of knowing how to read (and write): literacy, he said, ‘‘civilizes’’;
‘‘insures democracy’’; ‘‘creates prosperity’’; and ‘‘enlightens and dignifies’’.
Another consequence of literacy has centered on the ethical development
of the individual. Several authors have noted that knowing how to read and
write is often linked with moral fortitude (Pattison 1982; Stanley 1972).
Scribner observed that some societies bestow special virtues upon the literate
person, considering her to be honorable, spiritually enlightened, cultured and
in ‘‘a state of grace’’ (Scribner 1988: 77). She further notes that these self
enhancing aspects associated with the ability to read and write are often
given a cognitive interpretation, and it is assumed that both concrete think-
ing and learning difficulties are attributable to illiteracy. Literacy – defined
simply as the basic activities of decoding print – has been related to height-
ened moral and intellectual categories (Graff 2008).
While it was assumed that knowing how to read and write were synony-
mous with all of the above, only recently have educators and researchers
centered their attention on what reading and writing means or to how for-
mal education processes facilitate or hinder learning. At different times in
history a literate person has been defined as someone being able to:
1. sign his/her name
2. read/write a simple sentence describing his/her daily activities
3. read and write, by his/her self-report (not based on a test)
4. pass a written reading comprehension test at a level comparable to that
achieved by an average 4th grade student
5. engage in all those activities in which literacy is required for effective
functioning in his/her community.1
These characterizations of being literate are centered on the most rudi-
mentary aspects related to reading, writing and basic education. In some
policy documents, the emphasis on literacy as an individual trait and as a
panacea for social ‘‘ills’’ has given way to a recognition of its social dimen-
sions and its limitations as an independent catalyst for development and
change (Torres 2000). However, a longstanding version of literacy as a trans-
formational force for cognitive, economic, and social development continues
current in international and national documents. This view of literacy is
what Street (1984) has called an autonomous model of literacy, a paradigm
526 Judy Kalman

that conceives literacy as an independent variable, with context-free transfor-

mative effects.
Two recent definitions illustrate some of the many assumptions underlying
literacy that resonate with the above. The first one is from Bolivia and the
second one from Brazil. Both are included in a recent international literacy
policy document (OEI 2007–2012).
1. ‘‘Literacy is understood as the theoretical and practical knowledge that
allow for sufficient mastery of reading and arithmetic and their use for
one’s further development.’’
2. ‘‘Literacy is understood to be the first step towards returning to school
for young people and adults.’’
Several important premises are implicit in the first definition: it assumes
that literacy is an individual accomplishment and a first step for further
learning. The first definition supposes that reading and writing are to be
mastered; without specifying what this might mean or involve. The second
one clearly links literacy with schooling, assuming that reading and writing
is the path back to formal education for under schooled youth and adults. A
possible interpretation of this statement is that literacy (understood here as
learning the most rudimentary aspects of reading and writing) is a basic pre-
requisite type of knowledge to be further developed at school.
Pattison (1982) summarizes both the economic and moral consequences
attributed to literacy discussed above with what he calls a ‘‘dogma character-
ized by four axioms:
1. Literacy is equivalent to skill in reading and writing
2. Individuals who are literate by this standard are more cultured or civilized
than those who are not
3. That the skills of reading and writing should be propagated among poor
people as a first step in their economic and social development
4. That skills of reading and writing should be preserved and expanded at
home as a chief means of protecting democracy, moral values, and
rational thought’’ (vi).
Socio-cultural paradigms offer a different perspective for studying and
understanding written language use. According to this view, reading and
writing are not free standing skills to be applied to different tasks, and for
this reason authors such as Barton (1994, 1998), Brandt (2002), Gee (1996),
Street (2003), and others argue that literacy is more than the mastery of the
most basic components of reading and writing. Brian Street (1984) points
out that literacy cannot be autonomous or independent from socio political
contexts and is always ideological. He theorizes that reading and writing is a
mosaic of diverse practices that are situated in specific events and related to
larger social configurations. Reading and writing have social and individual
consequences and their outcomes are closely related to the situatedness of
 Beyond Definition 527

their use and are not strictly inherent to text genre or formal aspects of
written language. The results of specific literacy events are embedded in
social relations, in how reading and writing fit into the language life of
different social actors, and immersed in beliefs about how the social world
works. Being literate, in this paradigm, refers to the ability to use written
language to participate in the social world. Becoming literate involves lean-
ing how to manipulate and create with written language – text genres, mean-
ings, discourses, words and letters – in a calculated and intentional way in
order to participate in culturally valued events and as a means for relating
with others (Dyson 1997).
From this perspective, the characterization of literacy as the process of
learning letters and sounds and post literacy as the development of so called
complex skills and abilities considered necessary for the job market is tied to
an idealized economic structure that does not correspond to today’s world
economies (Gee et al. 1996). While these notions still thrive in many policies
and programs,2 some organizers of informal education programs associate
literacy with a more complex notion taken from Paulo Freire’s theories of
consciousness raising and orient their efforts towards building a more
socially and politically aware population (Freire 1970).
During the 1980s and 1990s discussions about what literacy is, how it is
accomplished and how it is learned is a principal concern of researchers. A
strong debate centered on the relationship between oral and written lan-
guage, the nature of skills, the role of context in literacy, the role of talk in
reading and writing, among others. A series of definitions of literacy that go
beyond the basic skills of reading and writing emerged, as a way of includ-
ing not only the processing or production of written language but the talk
that surrounds the use of writing as well (Heath 1983). Some attempts to
broaden the notions of literacy include oral language practices that make use
of literacy related abilities such as abstract thinking without the presence of
writing (Gee 1988). Concerned that our definitions do not forget the written
language component of literacy, Farr (1994) argued for what she called a
‘‘linguistic notion of literacy’’ encompassing ‘‘knowledge and use of the writ-
ing system’’ (p. 15). While this is a helpful working definition, the central
challenge remains to be understanding the nature of ‘‘knowledge and use’’,
and how they relate to each other, to communicative purpose, and contexts.
Following Street (1993) and Barton (1998), I have written elsewhere that
ethnographic research has shown that differences in the uses of literacy exist;
differences that are due to the insertion of literacy in complex contexts and
social relationships, to what people pursue in choosing to read or write, to
readers’ and writers’ position to others, and the ideas and meanings that
guide their participation. The concept of written language practice contem-
plates the social uses of reading and writing (the skills, technology and
knowledge necessary for reading and writing) as well as the ideas people
have about their practices (Ferdman 1994). It has also squarely situates writ-
ten culture in institutional settings, organizations and the power relations
528 Judy Kalman

that determines who reads and writes, what they read and write, who makes
these decisions, who establishes the conventions that govern written language
and who exercises power through written language (Brandt and Clinton
2002; Street 2003).
A simple (and, at the same time very complex) example of asymmetrical
power relations can be found in the selection of language use that is consid-
ered ‘‘appropriate’’ for school curriculum. The preference for the dominant
literacies of the western tradition – classical literature, essays, standard
language uses and spellings – over local or vernacular uses of literacy –
cultural manifestations such as rap, abbreviations used in instantaneous text
messages, or textual hybrids – implicitly determine what ‘‘counts as literacy’’
(Gallego and Hollingsworth 2000).
Sociolinguists offer substantial elements for understanding how reading
and writing are accomplished in the context of social interaction and beyond
(Duranti and Goodwin 1992; Gumperz 1984, 1986). They define context in
terms of the situation of use, the interactive dynamics that occur among
participants within a given communicative event. Talk is theorized and
understood in terms of its location of contexts and specific situations, a main
point being that communicative events take place in spaces charged with
social and cultural meanings. Speakers or reader/writers bring their world
view, language practices, history, and experience with the other participants
to a given situation. Gumperz (1984, 1986) posits that context is the intersec-
tion of specific situated interaction dynamics with relevant social, historical,
cultural and economic processes.
Others have contributed to the notion of context by associating it with
the concept of participation and the different ways of intervening in a given
circumstance, particularly in situations where learning takes place (Lave and
Wenger 1991; Rogoff 1990). These two theoretical constructs, context and
participation, are suggestive conceptual tools for understanding literacy, how
it is used and learned, and how language practices connect specific encoun-
ters with wider social configurations.
The following example, from my own research, illustrates how situated
practice is connected to broader contexts (Kalman 2004, 2005). In a commu-
nity literacy study, I observed an exchange between two participants in a
local sewing workshop. The instructor asked a neighbor, Gudelia, to help
her fill out a form so that she could get paid. The problem the instructor
had was that the form had a line where she was supposed to fill in her tax
identification number, the Registro federal de contribuyentes (RFC) and she
did not have one.
Strictly speaking, the RFC is an official number that is assigned to the tax
payer by the federal tributary system. The alpha-numeric series used to com-
pose it were common knowledge for many: the first four spaces were derived
from the taxpayer’s paternal last name, maternal last name and given name,
followed by the date of birth. Gudelia knew this, she went back to the first
lines, looked at the instructor’s name and date of birth and composed a
 Beyond Definition 529

number for her to use as an RFC. She told the instructor she could use that
number but when she had a chance, it would be a good idea to go to the
Hacienda (the internal revenue service) and have them officially assign her a
number. But for the meantime, they considered that the made up number
could meet the requirement for filling out the form and the instructor could
get paid. Through this specific, local, face to face interaction, the instructor
had access to at least two types of information: first, what a registro federal
de contribuyentes number is and how it is composed and second, what office
to go to in order to get an official one. This knowledge connects the immedi-
ate exchange to official institutional spaces, laws, and procedures. She
also got a solution to her immediate problem without entering into the
dynamics of the bureaucracy, which would surely have held up her paycheck
(pp. 64–65).

Becoming literate: the issue of access

In recent years, researchers have raised questions about what gives individu-
als and communities access to literacy. In the education discourse in Mexico
and other countries in Latin America, coverage has been a major issue: from
1960 to 1990, for example, Mexico’s main educational policy was centered
on ways to expand the school system, insisting on the importance of giving
children ‘‘access’’ to education. In this context, access meant making a seat
in a classroom available to every child and getting children to enroll in
school and stay there throughout the six years of primary instruction. Only
in 1993 did Mexico make nine years of basic education mandatory; currently
the national average of schooling is just above a seventh grade education.
Others (Baker 2004; Warschauer 2002) have argued that the notion of
access should be oriented towards identifying the different processes involved
in education, constructing formal knowledge, and becoming literate. One
common denominator of these analyses is the concern for rescaling the
social dimensions necessary for learning as a way of highlighting interactive
processes and deemphasizing the material ones. David Baker (2004) has
pointed out that in policy discourse access refers to ‘‘provision of equal
opportunities’’ (p. 5) with little or no mention of what occurs in the class-
room ‘‘that seem to privilege some learners rather than others’’.
Baker’s focus on the aspects of classroom exchanges underlines the inter-
active processes involved in learning in a classroom: the display of knowl-
edge, the exploration of its use and purpose, the construction of meaning for
immediate contexts and its relevance for other situations. These same proc-
esses are also present in contexts out of school, the main difference is that in
everyday contexts these processes are part of situated practice rather than
orchestrated by a teacher. However, in situations of apprenticeship, the more
expert participant may purposely demonstrate different practices and know
how for an apprentice (Lave and Wenger 1991).
530 Judy Kalman

Warschauer has written a thought provoking analysis of the notion of

access, by relating this term to new information and communication technol-
ogies (ICT) and literacy. He notes that the idea of access is often limited to
the possession of technological devices, basically the ownership of a compu-
ter. He argues for a more complex notion of access, stressing the importance
of social contexts of practice and the shifts in the use of technology depend-
ing on historical, political and sociocultural conditions. He recognizes that
while the presence of material artifacts is necessary, it alone does not lead to
technological competence.
The perspective shared by the above theoretical discussions is the empha-
sis on social interaction rather than material conditions. Warschauer con-
nects his discussion to the current debates on literacy, noting the important
parallels between the digital divide (the presence or absence of computer
technology) and Goody and Watt’s literacy divide of the sixties (the presence
or absence of reading and writing). Like the other authors, he recognizes the
importance of material availability of literacy but defines access in terms of
social interaction, discourse practices and use (Goody and Watt 1968)
In discussions about literacy, the importance of the specific contexts
where reading and writing take place have been a topic of research and dis-
cussion for several decades. Scribner and Cole’s 1981 classic study of the Vai
is a case in point. Through studying a trilingual tri-literate community and
the use of reading and writing in different contexts (English at school,
Arabic at the mosque, and vernacular written Vai in the community), they
were able to tease out what was learned from becoming literate and what
was learned from the different social processes involved: formal schooling,
religious worship and collaboration between neighbors. They present con-
vincing evidence to support the premise that in the process of appropriating
literacy, the social relationships and processes are simultaneously learned.
Brandt’s (1998) study of literacy sponsors portrays how newcomers to
written language use interact with more experienced readers and writers for
learning specific uses and meanings of literacy (Brandt 1998). Mediators are
particularly important social actors for literacy learning and use in commu-
nity settings. They provide a needed service for others; they serve as spon-
sors not only for reading or writing a specific document but also for
navigating different contexts where literacy is used. They may have some
schooling, but more important is their accumulated knowledge regarding
specific literacy practices: letter writing, interactions with official agencies,
accounting, and experience with discourses and their interpretation.
Community members may have only very specific needs for reading and
writing. Their uses of written language may be circumscribed and locally
situated (signing report cards, check-in at health center, signing a marriage
certificate). They may have to shape or adjust conventional practices to solve
specific situations as one woman did, asking a friend to sign a report card
for her, despite the social assumption that a signature is of one’s own hand
(Kalman 2003). This is why practices are context sensitive, and adjusted to
 Beyond Definition 531

the demands of specific literacy events. In situations where people encounter

the need to read and write, mediators help them cross contexts and discourse
lines to construct the literacy practices necessary to fulfill social requirements
or satisfy emerging needs for interpreting or producing writing. The partici-
pation of mediators may be as precise as providing specific information for
written language use and/or encouragement, helping another fill out a form
or reading a personal letter out loud, or they may become so involved with
their reading and writing partner that they write letters or other documents
for them, they accompany them to official agencies, schools or other places
where the use of literacy takes place, helping their partner resolve whatever
issue they may be.
In my own work (Kalman 2005), I have distinguished access from availa-
bility, using the notion of availability to signal the material aspects of liter-
acy (the physical presence of print materials, digital technologies, social
infrastructure for reading and writing such as post offices, libraries, book-
stores, newsstands, cybercafes, etc.) and access to discuss the social condi-
tions necessary for literacy learning. I have written elsewhere (Kalman 1993,
2003, 2004) that access involves the opportunity to take part in meaningful
and authentic events where reading and writing are essential for participa-
tion, and the opportunity to interact with other readers and writers. During
my work with women in a community in the process of transition from rural
to urban life, I found that creating the opportunity for them to read and
write with a very literate other had an important effect on their interest in
literacy. We spent a lot of time getting to know and trust each other.
This approach privileges the relationship of readers and writers with
others around text over the direct relationship between individuals and
written language. Evidently individuals relate to texts through reading and
writing, but their knowledge and competence for understanding, interpreting,
and producing text is mediated by others. Learning to do so is influenced by
how they position themselves to the text and the other participants involved.
Readers and writers become independent written language users as a result
of their contact with others, through co constructing knowledge and know
how together, not just from individually ‘processing’ written text.
Conceptualizing collective literacy practice in terms of mediation provides
a frame for analyzing how mediators and literacy partners spend time
together, examine written and graphic representations, interpret written
texts, deliberately create meanings, and share literacy related know how.
Through interaction, social spaces emerge where readers and writers mediate
literacy for each other and cooperate to accomplish a shared goal; spaces
where participants make meaning from and around written language and
appropriate processes of interpretation and symbolic forms, as in the exam-
ple of the instructor and her neighbor presented above. Social interaction is
a crucial concept for understanding how learning takes place and how liter-
acy is socially disseminated. It is there where knowledge is constructed by
532 Judy Kalman

active participants who simultaneously organize their knowledge within

themselves and with each other (John Steiner 2000).
Learners exposed to the most mechanical and prescriptive aspects of liter-
acy through copy, dictation, and drill appropriate this particular strain of
literacy. In each of these tasks, the content, form, and use of written texts
is determined by a more powerful other. In authentic uses of literacy, the
reader and writer control their reading and writing activities. Access to
literacy, in a broad sense of the term, requires contact with powerful
discourses and literacy practices that lead to understanding and responding
to other discourses (Bakhtin 1981), how to read the world using experience
and texts as a reference, (Freire 1970); and relationships that give literacy a
place in ones’ personal and social life (Dyson 1997). Following Bakhtin’s
notion dialogism, understanding and meaning are constructed through inter-
action with others and expressed in the answers readers and writers (and
speakers) give in reply to different representations of their world and their
place in it. Gee (1996: 142) refers to those discourses learned in social
networks beyond the family as ‘‘Secondary Discourses’’ and notes that they
‘‘build on and extend the uses of language and values, beliefs and attitudes’’
acquired as part of the primary discourse learned within families. They may
be more or less compatible ‘‘in words, deeds and values’’ with our existing
language practices, and they ‘‘involve uses of language, either written or
oral, or both, as well as ways of thinking, valuing and behaving that go
beyond the uses of language in our primary Discourse’’ (Gee 1996).

Literacy practice, schooling, and community knowledge

Practice refers to the opportunities and types of participation in culturally

valued activities rather than a strictly utilitarian deployment of written
language in order to achieve concrete goals (write messages, read the news-
paper, write an essay, compose lyrics, and so on). According to Barton et al.
(2000) ‘‘literacy is best understood as a set of social practices; these are
observable in events which are mediated by written texts’’ (p. 9). Participat-
ing in the social world implies a wide range of possible communicative
events where reading and writing are crucial for intervening: reading litera-
ture (novels, stories, essays, poetry and plays) for example, is a social activ-
ity in the sense that interpretive practices are historically construed and their
meanings are set in a universe of written texts. The same can be argued for
reading and writing graffiti. Reciting isolated syllables (ma me mi mo mu) or
sacred texts is also a way of participating in specific reading events or reli-
gious ceremonies; however, these types of practices do not necessarily give
way to participating in contexts other than those mentioned.
Research has shown that school is not the only place where learning to read
and write occurs (Ferdman et al. 1994; Hull and Shultz 2002; Street 1993).
While school has a central role in developing new generations of readers and
 Beyond Definition 533

writers, the dissemination of written language practices often occurs in the

context of work, political organization, worship, health care, and other con-
texts of everyday life. In each of these cases, researchers have pointed out that
others played an important role in the process of becoming literate. The liter-
ate others served as mediators through different discourse worlds.
Rivero (1999) notes that parents have little or no schooling, they may be
anxious for their children to attend school hoping that it will better their
children’s life opportunities, but their desire may be hindered by economic
necessity. In situations of poverty, maintaining youngsters in school is an
expensive proposition: schooling requires supplies, uniforms and transporta-
tion; children in school are not economically active nor are they available to
take on family chores that free other members to go to work. In a context
of economic crisis, the tendency for poor families is to take their children
out of school simply because it is a luxury that cannot be afforded.
A recent study on marginalized urban youth in Mexico reports that as
children grow into early adolescence (Hernández Flores 2004) they may want
to assume more and more household and economic responsibilities; contrib-
uting to the domestic economy is highly valued and appreciated at home.
Their interest in formal schooling and its accompanying activities declines or
becomes secondary due to more pressing issues. In this study, leaving school
does not carry the same stigma that it might in more middle class contexts,
for the commitment to formal education is displaced by a commitment to
helping support their household, paying their own expenses, participating in
what are seen as more adult-like activities.
Schooling is not necessarily the norm for many of those people living in
developing countries; dominant literacies are not always a part of family or
community life. This reality raises important questions about the meaning of
literacy and the use of reading and writing in marginalized communities.
What about those who do not have jobs? Those that do not go to school or
leave at an early age? Those who are members of families where the parents,
grandparents, and/or siblings do not necessarily read and write fluently or
frequently? Those who have little contact with others who read and write?
What is literacy for people not in school, not within institutional, cultural or
labor structures where literacy is in constant use, display and motion? How
does literacy come into their lives? When? With what purpose?
We learn the language that surrounds us, including written language and
its uses. For this reason our knowledge about multiple uses of written
language grows from the opportunities we have to participate in communica-
tive events where literacy is continuously used. Furthermore, reading and
writing practices always occur in a context of social relationships that at
once permeate how we read and write and are a part of these practices. In
communities where reading and writing are scarce, those who can read and
write are important literacy agents for their acquaintances and family mem-
bers, serving as a link between societal demands for reading and writing and
individual uses of written text.
534 Judy Kalman

Recently, the economist Subramanian (2006) has noted this phenomenon

stating ‘‘Literacy, in this view, is something like a public good: literate
members of a household are seen as conferring a beneficial externality on its
illiterate members. As a consequence, ‘effective’ literacy is larger than would
be yielded by a straightforward headcount of those who are literate (p. 1)’’.
One family member’s reading and writing know-how become cultural capital
for all, a shared commodity that is a resource for the entire household.
More literate community members who have the important job of mediating
written culture for others, often teach their neighbors and friends how to
read and write in the process of helping them satisfy specific reading and
writing needs. Likewise, those who have continuous contact with contexts
where dominant language practices are used, disseminated and promoted
(schools, universities, publishing industry, the media, official agencies) appro-
priate these literacy practices as their primary discourse; those who live,
work and grow up in marginalized contexts will learn the discourses of local
literacies and language practices.
In their paper, The Nature of Literacy; A historical exploration (first pub-
lished in 1977), Resnick and Resnick note that ‘‘there has been a sharp shift
over time in expectations concerning literacy’’ (Resnick and Resnick 1988).
They further comment that the high standard of literacy is a recent develop-
ment, holding a large population accountable for literacy practices once only
expected of a few. The ability to read new material, understand, synthesize
and use information, and produce written documents was once only
expected of an educated elite (p. 190). The goal of universal, mass literacy is
indeed a recent one.

Conclusion

For decades it was assumed that literacy and education would contribute to
economic development, democratization processes, and political participation
and would also have profound effects in people’s lives. But literacy is neither
autonomous, nor an independent variable (Graff 2008). What research and
theory show is that literacy is deeply embedded in other dimensions of social
life. Its effects are more limited, and deeper changes in the living conditions
of marginalized populations requires political and economic policies and
actions on a different scale.
It is important to recognize the renewed interest in adult education as
evidenced by the rising number of world meetings and conferences being
held on this topic. The development of an increasingly more complex under-
standing of literacy offers insights into how to appreciate the diversity of
literacy and how to create contexts for learning. This means contemplating
local literacy practices and figuring out ways to move beyond the immediate.
But this cannot be achieved if local literacies are not taken into account.
Furthermore, it is necessary to understand how the local context is
 Beyond Definition 535

embedded in broader social arrangements: asymmetrical power relationships,

institutions, and historical configurations.

Notes

1. See, for example Graff (1987, 2008), Resnick (1988), Plan Regional de Al-
fabetización 2007–2015, Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos http://www.oei.
es/alfabetizacion/FOLLETOPIA2.pdf; NIFL. (2004). Report on Activities and
Accomplishments. National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved Sept. 29, 2006,
www.nifl.gov/nifl/publications/accomplish.pdf.
2. Currently being used in several Latin American countries, for example, is Yo si
puedo a program recently developed in Cuba based on the letter by letter teaching
graphic-phonemic relations.

References

Baker, D. 2004. Access and Equal Opportunities: Is it Sufficient for Maths/Numeracy,

Development and Social Justice? Paper presented at the 2006 Uppingham Seminar.
Unpublished manuscript, Uppingham.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin, tr. by
C. Emerson and H. Holquist. Austin, Texas: University of Austin Press.
Barton, David. 1994. Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language.
Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.
Barton, David, and Mary Hamilton. 1998. Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One
Community. London and New York: Routledge.
Barton, David, Mary Hamilton, and R. Ivanic (ed.). 2000. Situated Literacies: Reading
and Writing in Context, Vol. 1. London and New York: Routledge.
Baynham, Mike. 1995. Literacy Practices. Investigating Literacy in Social Contexts.
London and New York: Longman.
Brandt, Deborah. 1998. Sponsors of Literacy. College Composition and Communication
49: 165–185.
Brandt, Deborah, and K. Clinton. 2002. The Limits of the Local: Expanding
Perspectives on Literacy as a Social Practice. Journal of Literacy Research 34: 337–356.
Duranti, Alessandro, and C. Goodwin (eds.). 1992. Rethinking Context. Language as an
Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dyson, A. 1997. Writing Superheroes: Contemporary Childhood, Popular Culture, and
Classroom Literacy. (Vol. 2). New York & London: Teachers College Press.
Farr, M. 1994. En los dos idiomas: Literacy practice among Chicano Mexicanos. In:
Literacy across communities, ed. by B. Moss, 9–48. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Ferdman, B. W., W. Rose-Marie, and Arnulfo Ramı́rez (eds.). 1994. Literacy Across
Languages and Cultures. New York: State University of New York Press.
Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogı´a del oprimido. Mexico City: Siglo XX1 Editores.
536 Judy Kalman

Gallego, M., and S. Hollingsworth. 2000. What Counts as Literacy. Challenging the
School Standard. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gee, James. 1988. The Legacies of Literacy: From Plato to Freire Through Harvey
Graff. Harvard Educational Review 58(2): 159–212.
——. 1996. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology and Discourses (2nd ed., Vol. 16).
Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Gee, James, G. Hull, and C. Lankshear. 1996. The New Work Order: Behind the
Language of the New Capitalism. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Goody, Jack, and I. Watt. 1968. The Consequences of Literacy. In: Literacy in
Traditional Societies, ed. by Jack Goody, 1–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Graff, H. J. 1987. The Legacies of Literacy: Continuities and Contradictions in Western
Culture and Society. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Graff, H. 2008. Literacy Myths. In: Encyclopedia of Language and Education, ed. by B.
Street and N. Hornberger, (Vol. 2) 41–52. New York: Springer.
Gumperz, John. 1984. Introduction: Language and Communication of Social Indentity.
In: Language and Social Identity, ed. by John Gumperz, 1–21. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gumperz, John, and D. Hymes (ed.). 1986. Directions in Sociolinguistics. The
Ethnography of Communication. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Heath, S. 1983. Ways with Words. Language, Life and Work in Communities and
Classrooms. Cambridge, London and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hernández Flores, G. 2004. Polı´ticas educativas para la población en estado de pobreza,
Educación básica de personas jóvenes y adultas. Un estudio de caso. [Educational policies
for people living in poverty. Basic education for adults and youths. A case study]. Mexico
City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Hull, G., and K. Shultz (eds.). 2002. School´s Out! Bridging Out of School Literacies with
Classroom Practice. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Kalman, J. 1993. En búsqueda de una palabra nueva [In Search of a New Word].
Revista latinoamericana de estudios educativos 23(1): 87–95.
——. 2003. El acceso a la cultura escrita: la participación social y la apropiación de
conocimientos en eventos cotidianos de lectura y escritura. Revista Mexicana de
Investigación Educativa, Me´xico VIII(17): 37–66.
——. 2004. Saber lo que es la letra: una experiencia de lecto-escritura con mujeres en
Mixquic. Mexico, DF: Secretarı́a de Educación Publica-UIE-Siglo XXI Editores.
—— . 2005. Discovering Literacy. Access Routes to Written Culture for a Group of
Women in Mexico (translated by the author). Hamburg: UNESCO Institute of
Education.
Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral
Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levine, K. 1986. The Social Context of Literacy. London and New York: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Pattison, R. 1982. On Literacy. The Politics of the Word from Homer to the Age of Rock.
Oxford, New York, Toronto and Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
 Beyond Definition 537

Resnick, D., and L. Resnick. 1988. The Nature of Literacy. A Historical Exploration.
In: Perspectives on Literacy, ed. by E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, and M. Rose, 190–202.
Carbondale IL: Southern Illionis University Press.
Rivero, J. 1999. Educación y Exclusión en Ame´rica Latina. Reformas en tiempos de
globlización [Education and Exclusion in Latin America. Reform in the era of
globalization]. Madrid and Buenos Aires: Niño y Dávila Editores.
Rogoff, B. 1990. Apprenticeship in Thinking. Cognitive Development in Social Context.
New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scribner, S. 1988. Literacy in Three Metaphores. In: Perspectives on Literacy, ed. by E.
R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, and M. Rose, 71–81. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern
Illionis University Press.
Stanley, M. 1972. Literacy: The Crisis of Conventional Wisdom. School Review 80: 373–
408.
Steiner, John V. 2000. Creativity and Collaboration in Knowledge Construction. In:
Vygotskyian Perspectives on Literary Research, ed. by C. Lee and P. Smagorinnsky,
31–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Street, Brian V. 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge, New York, New
Rochelle, Melbourne and Sydney: Cambridge University Press.
Street, Brian (ed.). 1993. Cross Cultural Approaches to Literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Subramanian, S. 2006. Externality and Equity in the measurement of literacy. Exploring
the link. Gandhinagar: 1–13.
——. 2003. What’s ‘‘New’’ in New Literacy Studies? Critical Approaches to Literacy in
Theory and Practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education 52(2): 77–102.
Torres, Rosa-Maria. 2000. Literacy for All. A United Nations Literacy Decade (2003–
2012). Base document prepared for UNESCO. http://www.fronesis.org/immagen/
rmt/documentosrmt/UN_Literacy_Decade.pdf.
Warschauer, M. 2002. Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide. First Monday. A Peer
Reviewed journal on the Internet, 7(7).

The author

Judy Kalman is a researcher at the Departamento de Investigaciones Educativas of the

Centro de Investigación y Estudios Avanzados del IPN in Mexico City. Her work
centers on the social construction of written culture, everyday literacy use, and reading
and writing in school settings. She has authored articles in Spanish, English and
Portuguese in academic journals and practitioner oriented publications. She has also
collaborated with the Secretarı́a de Educación Pública in Mexico on programs designed
for creating learning opportunities for adult learners, evaluating new curricular pro-
posals and writing materials for the language arts programs for students in rural sec-
ondary schools. In 2002 she was the recipient for the International Literacy Research
given by the UNESCO Institute for Education for her literacy work with unschooled
and under schooled women. She has been a member of the Mexican Academy of Science
since 2004.
 538 Judy Kalman

Contact address: Departamento de Investigaciones Educativas, Centro de Investi-

gación y Estudios Avanzados del IPN (DIE-CINVESTAV), Mexico City, Mexico.
E-mail: jkalman@cinvestav.mx; judymx@gmail.com.

View publication stats