Deja Vu? Ahhh. . .the Literacy Myth (revisted)

I first encountered the notion of the "literacy myth" last semester. I have to be honest; I found it hard to accept that literacy does not increase cognitive ability. Isn't it obvious that those who read and write are move intellectually advanced then those who are not? Seemed fairly straightforward to me. Yet, although difficult as it was, I have rejected my prior notions on the superiority of literacy. As Olson suggests, I have lost my "naive belief in the transformative powers of simply learning to read and write" (3). Indeed, writing is a tool which in our modern society is clearly a functional necessity, but literacy does not make us a more intelligent society. I think by seeing literacy as a tool and not as something magical, I have been able to rethink my views on literacy.

As I reconstruct my literacy ideology, I am still perplexed by questions: So what? Why should literacy be removed from its pedestal? The answer, as Olson contends, is that our society (Western Ideology) needs to be aware of our arrogance because our beliefs are "a selective way of viewing the facts that not only justifies the advantages of the literate but also assigns the failings of society. . .to the illiterate" (2). How does our concept of literacy give us reason to condemn societies which are less literate. How do our ideologies continue to maintain the current hegemony?

In end this response with my first encounter with the literacy myth.

"Literacy, it is felt, freed some of humanity from a primitive state. . .literacy, it seems, is what makes us civilized" (Gee 26).
"Literacy, leads to logical, analytical, critical, and rational thinking, general and abstract uses of language. . ." (Gee 26).
I must admit I believe or still want to believe these statements to be true. I suppose, as Gee states, my own "literacy myth" is "foundational to how [I] make sense of reality." This reality leads me to believe that what I teach is important. Language Arts is, I have been known to say, facilitates and supports all other disciplines. I usually express to my young people "A Rationale for Learning to Read and Write" and "Why You Need to Learn To Speak Good" (that was intentional), very early in the school year. I have always believed that the more you read and write the better you read and write; I also promote active reading and process writing. I value this "essay-text literacy" because I guess I'm a "cog in the machine" perpetuating the values of the middle-class. After reading references to Scribner and Cole's research with the Vai (Gee 55), I believe I have to rethink my viewpoints (however difficult) on the role reading and writing play in the cognitive development of my students. I am interested in analyzing the influence (or the lack thereof) that schooling has on creative and critical thinking. I am concerned with this conclusion by Scribner and Cole: "School skills, beyond talk, are transitory, unless they are repeatedly practiced in people's daily lives (34). This compels me to question and revisit the skills I teach and activities I have my students do. Are my activities appropriate and useful? Do the skills I teach have a purpose beyond the classroom and a value by all of my students? The latter question is the tricky one. I fear I will always focus on promoting "success" within the dominate Discourse. Am I too indoctrinated to recognize where and when this may be "harmful" to my charges?