The history of literacy: Toward the third generation

Abstract

The history of literacy as a regular, significant, and sometimes central concern for historians seems in 1985 firmly established. As the inclusion of an article on the history of literacy in a special commemorative issue such as this suggests, the active thrust and exceptional growth in historical literacy studies over the past decade and a half has propelled the subject to prominence.Prominence, of course, has been to enormous benefit, inside the academy and on occasion beyond its walls. Nevertheless, this significant body of scholarship demands attention more broadly: both in terms of what it may contribute to other researchers and in terms of the persisting needs for interdisciplinary cooperation and constructive criticism. For example, historical literary studies have been marked by their attention to quantitative data and issues of measurement. As important as that emphasis has been to initial advances, it has also become a limitation to new conceptualizations and interpretations.My principal concern here is the present state of historical literacy studies, which I consider to be at something of an "awkward age." That I should sense this aspect of the moment is perhaps not surprising, for historical studies in general, after almost two decades of proliferating "new histories," are themselves in an awkward age. The recent appearance of a hefty number of books and articles surveying the state of the craft, searching for trends, and sometimes proposing new emphases and directions underscores this condition: for example, Stone's call for a retreat from social scientific and quantitative studies, hopes for "new narratives," attacks on social history, among many others.1 As the history of literacy joins the historiographical mainstream, it faces similar challenges and questions. Educational research offers a parallel situation, and literacy students sit, more or less uncomfortably, between the two disciplines. Literacy studies, though, may be an exceptional case: for example, the distinction between quantities and qualities, to use one dichotomy, exacerbates all questions of interpretation and meaning. Here, the quantitative record no matter how essential to literacy's complete study and no matter how cleverly exploited, may have inherent limits at least as severe as those in other areas of historical or educational analysis. 2 I referred to "an awkward age" for the historical study of literacy. My temptation is to conceive of the field's development in terms of individual life courses or cycles, at least metaphorically, and to posit the present situation as one of late adolescence or youthfulness. I do think, however, that a generational perspective is more accurate than that of the life cycle; in these terms, we might conceive of three modern generations of historical literacy studies.

Motherboards, Microphones and Metaphors: Re-Examining New Literacies and Black Feminist Thought through Technologies of Self

“…One might be fully comfortable with notions of literacy as only including standardized forms of language and uniform skills of parochialism -the abilities to read and write print-centralizing alpha-numeric characters only. Yet, in this comfort of simplicity, one might miss how literacies evolve -their ontological development -as in the ways that people marked time and events (and hence made meaning) by collecting objects such as sticks and stones carved stains on walls to reveal and record history; and invented scripts to stand in place of sounds (Graff, 1986).…”