Review of Literacy in American Lives by Deborah Brandt. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 254 pp.
At first, the significance of this book was not obvious. Brandt seemed to have assembled another compilation of accounts of literacy in daily life. However, a closer reading revealed that she developed a distinctive approach to her study of literacy by grounding it in an economic analysis. Literacy was not just appreciated for its power to enrich lives or its usefulness. She did not calculate the monetary value of education and incorporate these figures into tables or charts, but she used the benchmarks of economics, such as value, inflation, and diversification, to discuss how reading and writing impact the lives of 80 Americans born between 1895 and 1985. She concluded that to be literate entailed economic and political power, and different types of literacy were respected differently depending on their worth. For example, computer literacy was valuable in the 1990s; whereas, bilingual competence in Spanish and English was not as valuable. Literacy in the past century has been diversified and its value inflationary. “On the one hand, each new member …inherited higher and higher piles of literacy resources. But on the other hand, the reliability of their value was becoming shorter and shorter lived… It is in this inflationary cycle that ordinary American literacy is caught.” (104)
When I was reading Literacy in American Lives, I was drawn to two topics which are of significance to me as a community college educator. First, the book might help to provide some direction for an important issue which has pestered developmental educators at the College for years. Recently, in a series of viewpoints articles, Bridget McFadden (ViewpontS:winter 2002, Spring 2002,Winter 2003,) reminded readers of the low success rate of C.A.P. students who began at the initial level of instruction, English 089/097. Since virtually none of these students who did not pass the first semester ever enrolled in freshman English composition, English 101, it has been recommended that perhaps the students should be referred to other agencies for basic skills instruction rather than register for a repeat of English 098/097. The proposal inspired a number of responses,(ViewpointS list of articles) some of which questioned the availability of other agencies to teach reading and writing.
Needless to say, schools were the literacy agency which was cited most frequently in the recollections of Brandt’s informants. Over the years, schools maintained and expanded their roles in response to changing definitions of literacy and new populations of learners. Other agencies promoted literacy, but they were not as accessible as schools, and when these agencies promoted literacy, a payback was usually expected. For example, a union member recalled his training as an organizer, and a woman with an interest in writing was encouraged by her employer to learn editing on-the-job. In both these endeavors, the agency, the union or the manufacturer, expected some return on the investment in increased literacy.
Now it is less common to find this sort of investment on the part of agencies. For one thing, public education has taken over some of the “niche” roles that other agencies had. Today, a newsletter editor or union organizer would be expected to acquire much of the literacy background in higher education. Since literacy is linked to economic power, the agencies have to consider carefully their involvement in promoting reading and writing. “Sponsors deliver the material and ideological possibilities for literacy learning, often as a by-product of the struggles for economic or political ascendancy in which they are involved.” (70). In this competitive world, most agencies are less likely to teach literacy as a “speculative” venture. However, public schooling is an agent that can assume a “speculative” approach to improving reading and writing since the school does not depend on an immediate or significant payback from its investment; it can wait years for the fruits of literacy to ripen, and it can survive on a small harvest.
Nevertheless, Brandt assesses the responses of public education to literacy issues as inadequate. “Now, schools strain to assimilate into their traditional practices elements of a new ideology of literacy that [sic] attacks them at their foundations.”(205) The economic impact of schools is not so much due to their training of workers for the traditional economy, but due to their empowerment of literate individuals. Individual literacy demands are likely to be diverse and up-to-date, and consequently these demands may tax public education to do more and to do it more quickly than the public sector has been accustomed to.
Brandt’s approach, which focuses on the economic value of reading and writing, is not encouraging when considering the dilemma developmental education at the College faces. It will probably be difficult to identify non-college sponsors to assume a significant role in teaching literacy to adults, and it will continue to be a struggle for public education to teach literacy adequately to a large and diverse population.
Another topic which attracted my attention was the attitude toward writing outlined in the chapter, “The Sacred and the Profane: Reading versus Writing in Popular Memory.” In her interviews, Brandt found that while many respondents considered themselves “readers,” virtually none would label themselves as “writers.” Writing seemed to be linked to work, and it seemed to present a break between generations. “Though parents do not hesitate to endorse and promote reading, their involvement with children’s writing seems more restricted and circumspect.” (167) Writing was associated with “secrecy, censorship, pain, and opprobrium.” (196)
At first, I considered this description a bit extreme, but upon further reflection, I thought it appropriate. The reluctance of many developmental students and, at times, their active resistance to writing seem to support this characterization. Academic writing seems divorced from the “real” world, and it is often with discomfort that students produce a paper. Brandt’s book portrayed this aversion to writing as an attitude which affects more of the population than just those enrolled in community college developmental writing classes.
Fortunately, there are a number of instructors who are trying to make writing less painful. The efforts of Leslye Friedberg, editor of the c.a.p. literary magazine, are helping to make writing an enjoyable experience. For two years now, the magazine has published the work of developmental students, and maybe now some of them would consider themselves as “writers.”
Copyright 2003. Contact author for permission
Maintained by Jay Howard,Sept 2003