Roorda defines the literacy myth (though he calls it the literacy thesis) as well as autonomous and ideological literacy. He argues that environmentalists are still using the literacy thesis and that environmentalists and literacy theorists can learn things from each other. He argues that literacy theorists “in their own zeal over ideology…have been wont to conflate the varied ideologies of those propounding such distinctions, and to fetishize specificity unless generalizations of their own are at issue” (100). He also argues that in eschew technological determinism, literacy theorists assume that any “attention to literacy as technology must amount to determinism, and the consequent of neglect of technology as prime, perhaps primary, among the factors ‘embedded’ in literacy’s cultural milieu (109). A biocentric (the environmentalist) view “will insist that there are differences worth contemplating in the modes of distance and proximity our technologies promote, and that these are related to our modes of sustaining relations of community in place” (110). Also, looking at orality can “refute the notion that changes in instrumentation, even quite drastic ones, are tantamount to human progress” (112). This also encourages to acknowledge and to look at the differences that do exist between literacy and orality (which he implies literacy theorists gloss over).
0 Comments
|
Tags
All
|