Ongoing Politics: Literacy as a Public Issu

Giroux, Henry A. Reading Texts, Literacy, and Textual Authority. Boston University. Oxford, Ohio. 1990.

Giroux’s reason as to why he writes this paper is to encourage literacy, but not just for that simple fact. Giroux’s ultimate goal in publishing this essay is in hope that by encouraging, and having literate students, the state/county will then have “critical citizenship and democracy” (4). To do so, Giroux’s explains the need for change from “great books” to books that are more cultural or representative of all other cultures/ideas that fall outside of the dominating western civilization and ideology. Through this change, he will bring up the notion of empowerment through reading such texts (with the aid of the teacher as a “public intellectuals”).

In the subject of literacy, Giroux views a text as political. Through his eyes, the idea is regardless of what is being read there will always be “texts [that] be construed both as literary objects and as historical and social constructions that move within various circuits of power and signification” (98). A text may be perceived as just ‘a book’ but the book in then carries many components such as: who wrote it and with that intentions, why was this written, and ending with the ultimate question what effect does this have on readers from all different backgrounds? As readers, by reading a “great book” or anything else that falls into the category of typical literature, we are falling into the same routine as everyone else, and thus alienating the reader and becoming the ‘good citizen’ Giroux is trying so hard to argue against.

Identity and the struggle to maintain ones own identity, as a reader becomes another contributing factor to straying from the objective as the critical citizen. Reading a text that is foreign, alienating, and disinteresting is something that needs to be abolished. Giroux states this very clear:

What I am arguing for here is a deliberate attempt to decenter the American literature curriculum by allowing a number of voices to be read, heard, and used. This approach to reading and writing literature should be seen as part of a broader attempt to develop pedagogically a politics of difference that articulates with issues of race, class, gender, ethnicity, and sexual preference from a position of empowerment rather than from a position of deficit and subordination (92-93)

Giroux’s deliberate attempt to alter the curriculum is a challenge, yet the utopian outcome of it appears, of course, wonderful. The ability to maintain one’s real self, and not give in to what the academia is displaying and indicating, is a struggle. The idea of empowerment versus the disempowerment traces back to the authoritative text. Going back to the “great books” readers that cannot relate to the texts due to the cause of such great diversity leaves a student disempowered. Whereas if a Native American student were to read a text in which he could relate to personally, this would not only encourage the student to maintain that identity, but with that will keep his perspective throughout his life.

To change what has been seen as the standard is a difficult task, and so, Giroux turns to the teachers to throw the load onto them. A central word used throughout his explanation is “leadership” and with this leadership, the teachers can help guide the students into being literate. Giroux not only stating that teachers stick to their classrooms, but extend outside of those walls, “providing the opportunity for teachers of English to engage more critically what they know and how they come to know I n a way that enables them to presuppose a pedagogy of democratic life that is worth struggling for” (100). Once more, Giroux notion of having a better democratic state starts off with literacy (teachers/students), or in other words, at school, in an English class.

Though Giroux’s agenda may have a more political tone to his essay in comparison to the more educational-friendly, his point overall is just as valid as the previous texts read in class. The notion of being more socially/politically active is something can be done and is reasonable, if not an obligation as American citizens. Through the texts required of us to read, we are able to see the reflection of the society we are to want; however, if that reflection is always the same, we remain the good citizens. Sense of identity, inside the classroom is important, and Giroux’s point of encouraging that and growing it is something very much to consider for teachers going in to the classroom setting soon. Though in the year 2009, there are courses/classrooms that offer the different perspective novels, it is not found everywhere. The goal now from the Giroux’s standpoint would to further this notion to every nook and cranny untouched of the diversity touch.

Lastly, agreeing to Giroux’s standpoint, there has to be a sense of balance in which Giroux seems to avoid. His essay brings forth much emotion of bringing forth radical change, that to rid of the standard “great books” is just as unfair as not having the diversified novels. Those “great books” are perhaps not the greatest, but are continuously alluded to throughout most of western-culture novels. Giroux’s goal is not far fetched, however, he demands the change to occur within a night, where in reality, it will take years. If the Western World had taken roots in centuries before us, then how does Giroux plan to uproot this tree within a short time? Also, to rely such a heavy load, can even be called a burden, upon the teachers backs is too much for one group. It can start with the teachers, but there must be more support from other ends. Teachers are not the only beings to have mouths. Placing too much effort in trying to “empower” the students, he seems to lessen the load of change upon the students. Teachers are not alone in a classroom, but in fact have a community. With that community working as a whole, then perhaps the goal can be achieved within a reasonable amount of time.

Teachers as Door-Knockers

Molls and Gonzales’s essay “Lessons from Research with Language-Minority Children” brings up the term “funds of knowledge” and how these are obtained and then used in the academia. As the essay begins to unravel, it is stated from the very beginning that household research will be done with the aid of teachers. This then leads the researchers as well as the teacher to obtain that glimpse into the students’ lives which then, include questions of what and how are the students learning outside: this is the teachers “rite of passage”.

After intruding upon the students’ lives, they then realize their lives are not exactly what they may have had in mind. Upon realization that the home life of the students are knowledgeable in other aspects, which then makes them not incapable of being a well-rounded student, but the opposite. From the observations done, it seems as if the conclusion comes to a more communal environment in which the parents then began to involve themselves, “By the end of the school year, Mr. Johnson had been elected PTA president” (163). In an upsetting point of view, it seems as if by prying into the lives of their students, and the parents seeing this, did then the parents seem to be more involved in the education of their child. Though these parents had given permission for the “teacher-researcher” to observe the household, it is still a bit creepy to know that teachers extend themselves from outside the classroom setting and into the privacy of the students homes. The goal of this is to better the students, however the idea of this seems a bit unsettling.

As the essay comes to its conclusion, the goal in which is trying to be obtained is ideal, and can be accomplished: “the relationships between teacher and students always mediate the students’ engagements with texts, as well as what literacy comes to mean for them within the classroom” (169). This being the goal, it seems that the project in which the teacher involved the students into coming up with their own questions, seems to be the most ethical, in that the teacher keeps herself outside of the privacy of students’ homes. In Freedom Writers, when the teacher had attempted to get a glimpse into the students’ lives through the barrier-breaking-line she had even pushed it too far, and this was being done in a classroom setting. If Hollywood can understand that the lives of students are kept private and separate from the school in that there aren’t teachers knocking on doors, then how does Moll and Gonzalez except aspiring teachers to consider door-knocking as an option?

In a brief response to Johnny Magic’s blog pertaining to the ‘language minority’ as having “expanded possibilities”, it is easy to agree that this encouragement of the “other” language is not something that is accepted with politicians, and citizens. With that being clear as a possibility, on behalf of the teacher, to encourage a student to make use of their language in the school, perhaps storing in the classroom/library a variety of books of different languages, perspectives, writers, etc.

Response to Christa's Blog

I definitely agree with my colleagues regarding literacy's constant changes and I believe there is no way ever becoming "literate" in every sense of the word. Even referring to literacy within more specialized genres such as "medical literacy" would be far too vast of a category to become fully literate in. A human brain surgeon does not need to be literate in the kinds of medical jargon a reptile veterinarian would need to know. I must take some exception to the notion that "we, as a society, are never fully literate." I believe that a society is the only way to even come close to being "fully literate." Since literacy is a social practice, including the entire society and every one of each individual's literacy practices is to be fully literate. Individuals cannot be fully literate, but the entirety of society (I should point out that I am referring here to the world's population as a society) takes each individual's literacy as a contribution to its overall level of literacy. This, I feel, is the only way of determining how anything can be completely literate...Include everything!

Almost any voluntary learning requires an environment in which the learner can feel safe. I agree that if a student feels insecure about their lack of knowledge or the environment they are in, learning is going to be bumped out of the water and self-protection will be the primary goal, whether it is just from embarrasment at lack of knowledge or for self-preservation.

I think Christa nails it when she says that the factors which inhibit or allow for "degree of access to literacy practices...are interdependent." I think every aspect of social interaction exerts influence on what extent of literacy each individual is able to obtain. It is definitely amazing that individuals are even as literate as they are now with all of the factors that could so easily prohibit it.

Moll and Gonzales

This article focuses on the “funds of knowledge” that come from different social and cultural backgrounds and how these “funds” can help influence the classroom and its students in a positive way. Often minority students who are learning to speak English are overlooked and treated as if they aren’t as intellectually “sound” as students who speak the dominant language fluently. Students and families in this situation are sometimes altogether ignored as households who have worthwhile knowledge and experiences to bring into the classroom, as well as, influence literacy practices in general. This article serves to debunk this implication.

The social networks that a student and his/her family are involved in all provide “funds of knowledge” which relate to a households origins, family members employment, occupations, and “labor specific to household activities”. These “funds of knowledge” learned outside of the classroom provide significant value in fostering a children’s development inside the classroom. What I really like about this article is that it suggests that having access to many languages and many cultures “creates the expanded possibility of not only one but two (or more) social worlds” (70). This gives the “language minority” way more access and understanding to multiple forms of literacy which only serves to help them more than it hinders them.

However, the education system, at least in this country, appears to me to be looking at literacy in one way, the “English speaking way”. It doesn’t openly welcome any type diversity and often views it as hindrance to formal education standards set up by fluent English speakers. This limits all the things we can do to really make students enjoy education and want to be involved in the learning process. By disregarding where they’re from, where their families are from, their social context in general, we are limiting our view of literacy as well as limiting our view of them as learners. By acknowledging and embracing what students “funds of knowledge” from outside the classroom bring inside the classroom, instruction inside the classroom can only strengthen. By creating alternative projects and assignments that relate to them and capitalize on their “cultural strengths” literacy can transform and become even more universal.

The Ideology Theories Will Vary within Each Community

While my peer adequately describes in Barton and Hamilton’s, “Understanding Literacy as a Social Practice,” I would just like to reiterate the “Ideology” of how literacy can be most effective within a given community. This effectiveness within the community occurs through Ethnography, Sociolinguistic, Anthropological and Psychological studies. Through these studies, the greater understanding of a communities literacy studies leads to a greater understanding of the needs of the communities; thus, enabling theorist to provide better networks and roles of literacy ideologies within the communities.
Barton and Hamilton point out oppression and social inequality as a possible means of oppression which in turn, as I see it, a great motivator for the desire to overcome oppression for one’s own personal and family gain. So, for those people who choose to devote their lives reducing social inequalities and redefine knowledge and power get two thumbs up in my book.
In terms of her response to Farr she is correct in regards to literacy not always an option. Although if a closer look were to be taken on the private homes we might see that Mexicanos are in a transformation from colonization and industrial revolutions. This change has created a further gap due to capitalism; therefore, creating a larger gap of motivation. Each communities needs change within each speech community, so there are many factors to be considered within every speech community.

The Ideology Theories Will Vary within Each Community

While my peer adequately describes in Barton and Hamilton’s, “Understanding Literacy as a Social Practice,” I would just like to reiterate the “Ideology” of how literacy can be most effective within a given community. This effectiveness within the community occurs through Ethnography, Sociolinguistic, Anthropological and Psychological studies. Through these studies, the greater understanding of a communities literacy studies leads to a greater understanding of the needs of the communities; thus, enabling theorist to provide better networks and roles of literacy ideologies within the communities.
Barton and Hamilton point out oppression and social inequality as a possible means of oppression which in turn, as I see it, a great motivator for the desire to overcome oppression for one’s own personal and family gain. So, for those people who choose to devote their lives reducing social inequalities and redefine knowledge and power get two thumbs up in my book.
In terms of her response to Farr she is correct in regards to literacy not always an option. Although if a closer look were to be taken on the private homes we might see that Mexicanos are in a transformation from colonization and industrial revolutions. This change has created a further gap due to capitalism; therefore, creating a larger gap of motivation. Each communities needs change within each speech community, so there are many factors to be considered within every speech community.

Money and Peer Pressure

Economy does play a heavy role in a person’s ability to familiarize oneself with literacy. Because economical issues is always the central focus on just about any issue, it then allows to raise the question hat if money is always a problem with certain communities, and they are always in seek of it, then how can they worry about learning to read? Elementary children may not worry too much (even though some children are still aware they have less) but as the student matures, with the focus of “I need money quick” then literacy is obviously on the bottom of the list. Having said that, if the high school student rather make quick cash, as opposed to reading, then is trust between a teacher and student going to make anything better? It seems that outside factors, anything outside of “institutions” are a better way of obtaining literacy. Lirico is in fact a huge factor in obtaining literacy, and to a certain extent, it is through the use of picking up everyday vocabulary that babies began to learn to speak, and even adults. Through reading or hearing a new word do we continue as adults to build on our literacy. Barton does bring up a large aspect of literacy in that it is social. If Billy’s friends don’t want to read, Billy isn’t either; however, Billy and Friends will learn to read in ways that appear to be “cooler” such as reading comics. Lastly, as Johnny Magic and Sporty Spice have mentioned, to achieve the highest point of literacy is almost impossible.

Response to Mz. Christa

Firstly, Christa excellent job on the first "official" blog essay on Literacy Schmiteracy!!! Very well done!
I thought "safety" was a really interesting factor brought up in Farr's essay. I never really thought of it as an element that affects literacy but it definetely does. When a child doesn't trust a teacher, unwilling to exspose weakeness, work never really can get done and functional literacy becomes a harder thing to achieve. Also, if someone is too afraid to go to school in the first place or is uncomfortable in their learning environment that creates conflict. In "Freedom Writers" some of the students rarely show up to school either because they don't trust and respect their teacher or because they don't feel "safe" going to school because of the environment in and around the institution. Even when they're in the classroom they feel unsafe and distrustful of one another which doesn't make the class easier to instruct for the teacher. Which limits her ability to provide the literacy studies they need.
I also enjoyed Christa's notion "that we, as a society, are never fully literate". I think this is true. Literacy is ALWAYS changing and I think sometimes, as a society, it's difficult to keep up with the ever-changing ideas and standards concerning literacy, which makes "ultimate" literacy difficult to achieve.

Oral Speech vs. The Writen Work

I, respectively, disagree completely with Mona. While the written language is open for mis-interpretation, the spoken word is as equally open for misunderstanding. Mona writes, “orality guarantees that we hear every word, and every inflection, but in reading written texts we can sometimes accidentally overlook words, important and insignificant alike,” and I dispute this claim for many reasons. Addressing the issues of oral speech first, regardless of the context (person, place, or subject) there is always a situation when the hearer must stop and rethink some of the given information. The information could be syntaxitily awkward, complex enough to require additional interpretation, or simply a thought of great ideas which supersedes the orality of the situation.

Secondly, Plato argues writing is a copy of a copy. In that, writing leaves the reader with an illusion, or assumption of the writers real meaning, of the readers truth which is to say that the reader will take what he chooses as valid and true and use only as one sees fit. While Ong and Plato argue, that within conversational discourse one is always allowing complete clarity in the subject at hand. One is able to ask questions directly from the source, thus leaving no room for assumptions.

Mona argues, “We can very effectively receive and internalize meaningful information without a speaker.” However, I am in agreement with Ong, and moreso Plato, that writing is artificial. Writing is not always going to represent the true thoughts of the speaker, especially in formal writing since we are limited within a specific context. Take for example, the classic example of how Adoph Hitler has twisted the sacred text of Biblical terminology using it to justify his attempt to commit genocide on the Jewish religion. This example goes to prove how texts can be used and taken out of context for one’s own personal gain. With the clarity of formal speech we can be assured that all hope is not lost. Just as within the court room. Till this day if a case is tried in front of a judge, the arguments are heard orally from both the defendant and plaintiff. I believe this is for the reason of “The Appeals,” allowing the speaker to portray Pathos, Ethos, and Logos. I think The Appeals are mostly effectively portrayed in the oral context. In the written context, there is no intonation to portray ones Pathos.

Literacy Blog Project - Christa

Literacy Lirico - Barton and Farr - The Function of Functional Literacy

Barton, David and Mary Hamilton. Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community. London: Routledge, 1998.

Farr, Marcia. En Los Dos Idiomas: Literacy Practices Among Chicago Mexicanos. Hampton Press. Cresskill, New Jersey, 1994.

Barton’s piece is about local literacy in a small area of the north-west portion of England, called Lancaster. The study was done in the later part of the 1990’s. Barton, among others, used interviews and observation to attain a general sense of the towns’ cumulative literacy abilities. With regard to the methodology, it was structured as an empirical study, which focused on the following: historical background, which includes the long history of the town, including the Victorian architecture; theory, including several references to prior studies; and contemporary context, which relates the literacy of the people of Lancaster to current economic status and gender roles. Barton’s article does not delve deep into the actual findings of the study. It is focused on the methodology, as the article seems like one big introduction paragraph. Instead of understanding the study and the conclusion of that study, the article is infused with short, subtle definitions that aid in our understanding of literacy as a whole.

For example, Barton writes, “Like all human activity, literacy is essentially social, and it is located in the interaction between people” (3). This thought is brought up, consistently, throughout the reading as he mentions the idea of the ‘literacy as a social practice’ on several occasions. Barton writes, “When we talk about practices, then, this is not just the superficial choice of a word but the possibilities that this perspective offers for new theoretical understandings about literacy” (6). This idea is the existential view of literacy that I think most of us did not have a grasp on when this class began. Literacy is not just words, written or spoken. It is not just the ability to understand language and exchange either verbally or otherwise to another person. Barton views literacy as an idea, whereas a literacy practice is more of a concrete thing that ’exists between people, within groups and communities, rather than a set of properties residing in individuals’ (7).

Barton describes the literacy practices in several ways. First, literacy practices are culturally constructed. Barton explains, “Literacy practices are as fluid, dynamic and changing as the lives and societies of which they are apart” (12). This points directly to the literacy continuum that we, as a society, are never fully literate. We can be literate in what is functional for us as individuals. And for our society, literacy of certain structures, such as standard English, law, and medicine, are deemed superior to the literacy of a minority language. Second, Barton discusses the idea that literacy can be located in a person’s ‘own history’ (12). He cites several dimensions to this idea, including the fact that people use literacy as a tool to make change in their lives, among others. Third, Barton discusses literacy as a theory of learning. He recognizes that literacy can be acquired through formal, as well as informal education.

Likewise, in Farr’s study, she discusses literacy through the lens of a study of Mexicanos (immigrants who were born and/or raise in Mexico) in the mid-west and Chicago. The rationale of the study focuses on the idea that students’ language problems are often cited as a factor in dropout rates. The question is it simply a problem of lack of English fluency? Or could it possibly be the way standard English is used in formal schooling? Farr cites use of participant-observation as her methodology for answering these questions.

Farr’s study of literacy practices within this group of blue-collared Mexicanos focuses on the idea that learning takes place, not only in formal schooling, (usually because economic issues inhibit access to formal schooling) but also within the sphere of the individuals’ lifestyle. Within the study, it is fairly obvious that economy dictates accessibility of formal schooling. Farr writes, “literacy skills correlate with the number of years of schooling, as would be expected, but there are interesting exceptions, all of which have to do with personal motivations to learn and use literacy” (18). Because of this, the group of first generation immigrants learn, more often, via lirico. Lirico can be more simply described as the act of “picking up” the language through the use of everyday vocabulary. It is a learning process that can only happen when a nexus between a motivated person, a trusted ‘teacher’ figure, and a functional text diverge. Therefore, factors such as safety and basic need (food and housing before literacy) must be met. Trust is another factor that must be met. A person will not ‘expose’ weakness to a stranger. And the final factor, in Farr’s study, is motivation. Motivation can come from a combination of places, such as a family relation separated by language illiteracy, or a personal obligation to become literate for religious purposes (27).

So how do these two articles really speak to each other. I think the most obvious comparison would be the emphasis of the author’s ideas of the relationship between economy and access to literacy. First, literacy, according to Barton, “is located in the interaction between people” (3). Therefore, if a person does not have access to literacy practices outside of his or her home, the knowledge of literacy cannot grow. If formal school is the literacy practice, but a person is afraid to attend because they fear for their life, as in Barton’s study - or if a person lives in rural Mexico where the nearest school is several miles away and you’re family does not own a car, as in Farr’s study, that particular literacy practice is not an option. So I wonder, what can we, as future educators, do to help this process become a reality. For the majority, simply building more schools in rural Mexico is not a valid option. So what can we do with the power we posses? My first thought is to focus on the trust issue. Farr describes a learning environment that flourishes because one friend is teaching literacy to another friend. Now, in secondary school, this may not be exactly the avenue to take, but to create an environment where a student can trust his or her teacher is invaluable. My biggest moments of growth in my education, came from teachers who sincerely cared about my future and my success in life. Most people can tell if someone is not being genuine, especially children, so to truly want to help another person succeed is necessary.

Barton and Farr studied very dissimilar groups of people struggling with literacy. And yet, their studies speak to each other in a way that shines light on the fact that all kinds of people struggle with access and comprehension of literacy regardless of the color of their skin. Several factors are related to the degree of access to literacy practices, including economy, but also feelings of safety and trust, as well as motivation. These factors are interdependent. Motivation can be affected by economy, as well as gender and cultural gender roles. As Farr states, “Literacy is a social phenomenon” (26). It seems as though it is almost a miracle that literacy is ever reached with so much adversity to overcome.

Response to Mona's essay

Response to Mona: Ong and the Death of the Author

I was particularly intrigued by Mona’s thoughts on Ong’s theory of the superiority of written literacy versus oral literacy. She says, “I thought that Ong’s argument that writing delegates more power to individual words (because they rely solely on one another for context and meaning) than oral speech was unconvincing - orality guarantees that we hear every word, and every inflection, but in reading written texts we can sometimes accidentally overlook words, important and insignificant alike.” It reminded me of Foucault’s idea of “the death of the author.” He theorized that for a text to be written, the author’s ‘true’ meaning has to die first. He believed that because the text is not being read by the author, the readers own interpretations becomes the meaning. No two readers are going to understand a text in the same way. A text is read from a particular point of view that has been shaped by that person’s lifestyle, social norms, and life experiences. Though some people may read a text similarly, no two interpretations are exactly alike.

I think this is an important idea to remember when thinking about literacy. One of the basic tenements of literacy is that it is highly individualized. Literacy is different for everyone because everyone is different. People from oral cultures are literate and understand ideas in a different way than people from written cultures. To give more validity to one culture over another is a one-sided argument. This argument parallels the one that Plato makes about orality and the danger of misunderstanding that written text can invite.

Response to Mona's essay

I would definitely agree with Mona and "Johnny Magic." I think that to say writing is a superior form of communication can only be correct in certain contexts. Writing definitely has its strong points and there are some things that just turn out better with the written word. For things like formal papers or communications, writing allows you to structure your message and gives you time to review it before sending. However, as Johnny Magic points out, there are more emotional messages (like "I love you") that just don't have the same power when they are written. On the spot oral communication can be much more moving in such situations and it would definitely be superior.

Ong's Article and Mona's Summary

I couldn't agree more with Mona about Ong's article. Of course writing restructures thought but it isn't the perfect form of communication. Nothing really is or will be. Writing is good for some things and not for others. Just as Mona mentioned things are sometimes lost in translation and this definitely affects how we read things, as well as, how we structure our opinions and ideas based on the texts were reading. Oral Speech isn't perfect, of course, but nothing is. Still, Oral articulation often provides more of an emotional response than writing often does and I think by Ong saying that writing delegates more power to individual words than oral speech does is wrong. I know that if someone said "I Love You" to me face to face I would find it way more powerful than if someone said it to me through a text or email and that's where Ong's argument falls flat for me.
I also agree with Mona about how Ong diminishes oral cultures intellectual ability. Oral cultures are no less smart or analytical than written cultures and to say so is kind of ignorant.

Literacy Metaphors

Here are the metaphors our lover-ly group came up with!
LITERACY IS...
a brick wall
like a fork
a bowl of soup
like an onion
like moving into a new house
like a good man
a freight train
a bridge
like an ocean
like the good ol' U.S.A.

Human Experiences in Literacy (response to Mona)

Oral speech is as Mona states are much “more memorable” and most of the time, it is through speech that we as humans create memories and pass them on – even in text-rich societies. Ong’s belittling of oral-based communities is on a grand scale a belittling of the human experience and life. Though we read and see many slogans/ads in our everyday lives, we convey our experiences or reactions to those ads in speech. The majority of the population does not decide to write a paper on the effects of advertising in their personal lives, we use speech. Furthermore, though our society is less oral in comparison to other societies we are none-the-less oral communicating animals. Mona’s last sentence stating “In the end, the essence of writing is still rooted in surrounding experiences” can allow one to see that the lines between oral speech and written are sometimes blurred and that is something Ong seems ill informed about: it is not one or the other but a mixture.

Reflection on Original Literacy-Schmiteracy definitions of Literacy:

LeMar's blog treats literacy as more of a tool, namely the grammatical structures of language and the rules of linguistics. This view seems to be more in line with the autonomous model that focuses more on literacy as an independent and neutral tool to be used by the literate. This concept of literacy portrays it as a constant struggle to obtain mastery in the unitary goal of becoming literate.

Sporty Spice's definition of literacy leans more toward a broader, more encompassing explanation of communication of all sorts (oral, written, etc). This viewpoint seems to lean more toward the ideological model of literacy when it mentions the "intangible factor which ties the grammatical rules to emotional response within our human intellect" and refers to litracy as an "existential concept."

I think what Lydia is trying to explain in her views of literacy runs more along the lines of the ideological model. Her examples of various lifestyles shows that she feels the concepts of literacy are relative to each person's situation. She also touches on social situations such as"family, church, work, pleasure, and so on" putting her more in line with ideological viewpoints rather than seeing literacy as autonomous.

Johnny Magic's views on literacy are also closely n line with the concepts of the ideological model. Although she claims to not have a very strong idea as yet of what it means, she says that she sees multiple facets in literacy and thinks of it as "the way a person can communicate the point they're trying to make with relative ease in their own cultural context..." placing her far outside the autonomous definitions.

My own definition of literacy is a little aloof of the models we have been discussing, but I feel like, of the two, it woulld be more closely tied to the ideological model. I seem to be more focused on comprehension of messages being conveyed, and the social connections between author and reader. To extrapolate on this, I would say that my concept of literacy is more focused on individual experience and social context/communication, rather than any one autonomous or solid definition.