Literacy is very difficult to define. For example, literacy can mean reading, writing, representing, and, quite often, it simply means that one is educated. Just to confuse the issue even further, we can look at literacy through different 'views' -- skills-based, social, or critical. Part of the reason why literacy is so difficult to define is due to the ever-evolving nature of our literacy needs and the mediums that we develop to fill these needs.
Before delving into the developmental (read: currently technological) nature of literacy, it is important to look at what literacy means to the self. At the essential core of literacy is the desire to record and communicate. Even with the human capacity for language, I often find myself unable to express what I really mean. My experience is not unique. In fact, many other, more important people have expressed this issue more fluently:
“For in spite of language, in spite of intelligence and intuition and sympathy, one can never really communicate anything to anybody.” (Aldous Huxley, "Sermons in Cats")
“Human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt the stars.” (Gustave Flaubert, Madame Bovary)
{Gustave Flaubear - AKA hipster street cred} |
“Using words to talk of words is like using a pencil to draw a picture of itself, on itself. Impossible. Confusing. Frustrating ... but there are other ways to understanding.” (Patrick Rothfuss, The Name of the Wind)
Rothfuss, despite confirming our earlier woes, suggests that we may be able to tackle the meaning of literacy in more ways than by just using words, which is a task that I wish to pursue in further postings.
To start, however, I would like to make a very silly analogy and suggest that literacy is like a narwhal -- magnificent, but slightly ungainly (especially when attempting to describe it).
{Smiling narwhal thinks you're neat} |
No comments:
Post a Comment