"Literacy in Three Metaphors" - Sylvia Scribner

Sylvia Scribner, in “Literacy in Three Metaphors”, states that there is no one fix definition of what “literacy” is because apparently, different groups of people would have a different definition. With that, there will be “different objectives for mapping out programs that are aimed at the formation of a literate citizenry” (p.71).

The author then gave three metaphors to describe “Literacy”, namely, Literacy as adaptation (for functional purpose); as power (which is concerned with domination & superiority); and as a state of grace (the enhancement/development of one’s self).

From the aforesaid, we are actually looking at suggestions of the definition of “Literacy” made my Scribner. This somehow reminds me of an article written by Mathew Arnold, called, “Culture & Anarchy”, in 1882. Arnold wrote about culture, and how people could attain “sweetness and light” by being literate, in his case, by doing literature.

Note, however, that Arnold’s article was deemed as a fallacy as he seems to contradict himself when he stated some criteria everyone has to meet, such as doing away with social classes, in order to attain “sweetness and light” in which everyone becomes equal in every aspect. By listing out criteria, there is already an indication that people have to assimilate to certain “standards” to become “equal” in every aspect. Assimilation really does not equate to equality, for assimilation suggests the existence of a more superior group of people setting a standard for everyone else to follow.

In Scribner’s piece, I deem it wise of Scribner to emphasise that there is no standard definition of what “Literacy” is (he mentioned that twice – once at the beginning of the paper; and another time towards the end of the paper), as the act of giving “Literacy” a fix definition is an act of condescension to groups of people who do not meet the definition – thus, making these people seem illiterate. In Scribner’s case, she does not pinpoint at any one group, saying whether it is “literate” or not.

What Scribner did, in my view, was describing “Literacy” based on what the society think it is generally. In addition, she also provided a case study to show that people can still “survive” without meeting any of the three metaphors stated above, as she states, “[N]onliteracy does not exclude a person from full participation in economic activities or in town or society life” (p.78). Thus, in this case, Scribner questions the metaphor of “Literacy as Adaptation”.

Since there is no one appropriate way to define “Literacy”, the implication for us teachers is that we have to ensure maximum exposure to students, because with no clear line drawn to tell us who is considered literate & who is considered illiterate, the teachers have to immerse students with as much knowledge from different areas as possible, bearing the hope that these knowledge will fit into the criteria of what makes an individual “literate”.