Hearth of democracy: Literacy<\/p>\n
By John Michael Phillips<\/p>\n
MALANG, East Java (JP): Every year articles are printed in
\nlocal newspapers concerning the need for literacy in Indonesia.
\nThese articles remind readers that literacy means the ability to
\nboth read and write as the latter is often forgotten. In fact,
\nwithout including writing in defining literacy we fail to fully
\nunderstand its true dimensions, since the ability to use ideas is
\nas important as the ability to gather them. Second, we learn that
\nliteracy has an expanded meaning to include such things as
\ncultural literacy and technological literacy.<\/p>\n
The great worry today is the technological gap that exists
\nbetween those who can and do learn, and those who cannot and have
\nno opportunity to learn. For a number of reasons technological
\nliteracy is overrated in the sense that technology is getting
\neasier to use physically and to some extent mentally, but how,
\nwhen, and why to use it is as complicated as ever.<\/p>\n
Thus, it is quite clear that technology literacy discussions
\nshould focus on the need to enhance the ability to discern
\nappropriate uses of technology, and not assume that technological
\nsolutions are always the most appropriate.<\/p>\n
My favorite example of this occurred during the space race
\nbetween the U.S. and the former USSR. Both nations had to solve
\nthe problem of writing in zero gravity of space. The richer and
\nmore technologically oriented U.S. spent a US$1 million to solve
\nthe problem inventing a new pen. The poor Soviet Union solved the
\nproblem by using cheap pencils.<\/p>\n
An even more important element of literacy is also being
\nignored, its purpose-communication. Literacy is usually defined
\nas the ability to read and write in order to communicate or
\nunderstand communication through interaction with text. But not
\nall interaction with text is sufficient.<\/p>\n
When I was young with bad eyesight, I thought that when I got
\nglasses, I would be able to read since I could now see. So,
\ndistinctions between reading and writing and communicating are
\nimportant if one believes that the primary purpose of learning
\nhow to read and write is to foster better communication. Reading
\nis not simply seeing, nor writing simply scribbling. But even
\nmore important is, what kind of understanding and what kind of
\ncommunication?<\/p>\n
Some 40,000 copies a year of Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf
\nare reportedly sold illegally in Germany. I also seem to remember
\nthat when Mao was alive his little red book had the largest
\npublication and widest circulation of any modern book and may
\nhave rivaled the Koran and the Bible for \"popularity\". Finally,
\nit is certainly true that like colonialists compared to the
\ncolonized before the modern post World War II era, \"white\" South
\nAfricans during apartheid had a much higher rate of literacy than
\ndid \"blacks\" (because blacks had poor education). So literacy can
\nbe easily misused to foster oppression and tyranny particularly
\nwhen reading-writing are divorced from true understanding. The
\njob of the \"hero\" in George Orwell's book 1984 was to rewrite
\nhistory texts based on the latest party line, \"newspeak\".<\/p>\n
It's not that I advocate allowing people to remain illiterate.
\nLiteracy is potentially the most liberating of all human skills.
\nLiteracy skills are crucial and essential to the building of a
\ntruly democratic society. The whole idea that \"majority rules\" is
\npremised on the majority being literate. The initial use of
\n\"literacy laws\" in the U.S. was not to deny the right to vote to
\nparticular groups of people based on racial or ethnic background,
\nbut to insure that the voters could read and write and thus,
\nunderstand the issues on which they cast votes.<\/p>\n
That the law was subverted to keep minorities from having
\naccess to power does not alter the fact that an educated,
\nliterate population is the real strength of a democratic country.
\nIn fact, one definition of literacy is \"people who are educated.\"
\nSo the definition of literacy should include the idea that a
\nliterate person is one who understands. But there is even more to
\nliteracy.<\/p>\n
People who write will tell you that writing is not just
\ncommunicating with others, it is about communicating with
\nyourself so that you yourself understand better. Writing forces
\nyou to exceed surface understanding to the deeper levels of the
\nconscious and unconscious mind, so as to discuss with yourself
\nabout what you know and understand of the world and the way it
\nworks. In this way, you are able to explore your ideas, beliefs,
\nand dreams. That someone may be able to read, understand, and
\nempathize with you in a true act of communication is like
\ndiscovering the toy in the box of crackerjacks-pure,
\nunadulterated joy.<\/p>\n
But the act of writing and the act of reading impose a duty on
\nus to seek communication and understanding in the light and not
\nthe darkness. That is, we have a duty in society to use our
\nliteracy skills to seek truth, not to spread lies and believe
\nfalsehoods. Ultimately then, true literacy is not a privilege for
\nthe few or even a choice for the many, but a responsibility for
\nus all.<\/p>\n
DR. John Michael Phillips is an educator and consultant to
\nIBMT Surabaya.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/hearth-of-democracy-literacy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}