wagner literacyies rrq 04

7/27/2019 Wagner Literacyies RRQ 04

1/9

Review: Essay Book Review: Literacy(ies), Culture(s), and Development(s): The EthnographicChallengeAuthor(s): Daniel A. WagnerReviewed work(s):

Illegal Alphabets and Adult Biliteracy: Latino Migrants Crossing the Linguistic Border byTomas Mario KalmarLiteracy and Development: Ethnographic Perspectives by Brian Street

Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community by David Barton ; MaryHamilton...

Source: Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 2004), pp. 234-241Published by: International Reading AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4151674

Accessed: 14/09/2009 16:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ira.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

International Reading Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Reading Research Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4151674?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=irahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=irahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4151674?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/9

Reading Research QuarterlyVol.39, No. 2April/May/June2004? 2004 InternationalReading Association(pp. 234-241) ESSAY BOOK REVIEW

IllegalAlphabetsandAdult Biliteracy:Latino Migrants Crossing he LinguisticBorder.Tomas Mario Kalmar.2001. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 129 pp. Hardcover.ISBN 0-8058-3626-8. US$29.95. Softcover. ISBN 0-8058-3627-6. US$16.50.Literacyand Development: EthnographicPerspectives.Edited by Brian Street.2001. London: Routledge. 228 pp. Hardcover. ISBN 0-415-23450-6. US$105.00.Softcover. ISBN 0-415-23451-4. US$33.95.Local Literacies:Reading and Writingin One Community.David Barton andMary Hamilton. 1998. London: Routledge. 283 pp. Hardcover.ISBN 0-415-17149-0. US$100.00.Softcover. SBN0-415-17150-4.US$34.95.TheMaking ofLiterate Societies.Edited by David R. Olson and Nancy Torrance.2001. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.349 pp. Softcover. ISBN 0-631-22742-3.US$36.95.Multilingual Literacies:Readingand Writingin Different Worlds.MarilynMartin-Jonesand KathrynJones. 2000. Philadelphia:John Benjamins.377 pp.Hardcover. ISBN 1-55619-748-9. US$109.00. Softcover. ISBN 1-58811-025-7.US$37.95.

Literacy(ies),ulture(s),a n d development(s):T h e ethnographichallengeDANIEL A. WAGNERInternationalLiteracy Institute/National Center on Adult Literacy,Universityof Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

L

iteracystudies, whether focused on children,youth, or adults, have been aroundfor a long, long time. Comprehensivereviews of the field from both generalandspecific perspectivesmay be seen, for example, in the variousvolumes of theHandbookofReadingResearchpublished since 1984. While culturaland evenethnographic perspectiveshave increasinglyappeared n the Handbook,these large234


3/9

Essay Book Review 235

volumesremain mbeddedoverwhelminglyn thecognitive radition.The ongoingdebatebetweenad-vocatesof cognitiveandsocialapproacheso learn-ing in particular,ndto educationmoregenerally,sstill realandpresentn journalsikeReadingResearchQuarterlyndothers.However, majornewlayerofresearch ithdirectbearing n currentwaysofthinkingabout-and actingupon-literacy is nowmore thana decade n themaking.Thisresearchcombineswhatmaybeseenassocialandpoliticalapproacheso reading ndliteracy.Researchn adultreading---called oreoftenbythetermadult iteracyr adultbasic ducationyitspolicymakers,pecialists, ndpractitioners-hasarelativelyichandgrowingbodyof literature. oravarietyof historical easons, dult iteracy asbeen,and stillis,viewedby many o bechieflya politicalissue.Thispointwas firstmademostprominently yPauloFreire1970/1981),atleastpartlyn reactionto literacy ampaignsonductedover he centuries(Arnove& Graff,1988)andupto thepresent.Thecampaignmodeis evident n therecentlyaunchedUnited NationsLiteracyDecade,whichwas declaredin February003, and in some nationalcampaignefforts n NicaraguaMiller,1985).While thecampaignmodehas been somewhatdiscreditedseeOlson&Torrance,001, reviewedherein;Wagner, 989, 1992), adult iteracy learlysa political ssue n many f not most countriesodaywhereestimatedrealorpoliticized)lliteracy ateshavebecomepartof thestrategic rocessbywhichagovernment r itsopposition eeks o gainan advan-tage.Forexample,on a personalevel,I wasrecentlyinvolved n discussionswithofficialsn an Africancountry n whichthegoverningeadershiponfidedthat so muchpublicpresswas sentouton its nation-alliteracy fforts hattheymight oseanupcomingelection f theydidnot succeedn makinga discern-abledifferencen loweringlliteracy atesbytheelec-tion date. I was asked f there s anything hatweoutsiders oulddo to help.Howdo (should/could)ocialscientists eactto suchchallenges?Manymightshrug heirshoul-ders and say this belongs in the arena of policy orpolitics, but if we do wish to respond, how shouldwe? Do we suggest a longitudinal researchstudy todetermine which pedagogywould work best (arathertypicalacademicresponse), indicating that lit-tle can be done quickly?Do we become gadfliesandquestion the assumption that policy questions can beresearchedand solved in the nearterm?Do we applyfurther iterations of the previous (largelyWestern)literature on skill learning?Do we focus on socio-political issuessuch as first- and second-language

learning?Do we suggest arrying ut empiricalhousehold urveyshattryto accuratelymeasureheskills hatare(orarenot) learnedbyvariouspopula-tionsso thatgovernmentstimates anbesupportedbytrustworthy ata?Do we endorse hegovern-ment'sbelief hat iteracy rogramswillhelpsolve tseconomicor socialproblems?Do we suggestmakinga shortdocumentary ortrayingwhatcouldbecon-sidered successfulearner? ll theabove,andmore,havebeensuggested slogicalresponseso govern-mentpolicymakers-notonlyinAfrica,andnotonlyin developing ountries.Indeed,oneof themoststartling spects f lit-eracyresearchddressingllagesof learnerss itsstayingpower n boththepublicandacademicdis-courses.ThroughoutheUnitedNationsLiteracyDecade heintensityof interestn thisresearchslikely o increase. hus,this is a timelymomenttoconsideroneof thefastestgrowing esearch omainsforaddressingowpolicymakersnd research racti-tionerscanproductivelyonsiderhemultivarieddimensions f literacy--whats termedheretheethnographichallenge.Definitionalandconceptualssuesnot onlyfostereffectivedebates n matters f substance utalsocausewell-meaningpecialists ndactivistsomiscommunicatendmisunderstandne another.The pluralizationf thekeywords n the initial itleof this reviewsuggestshepotential or confusionofterms,orat leasta multiplicity f theirmeanings,which seemto bemoreunderstandablen thesingu-larthan n theplural. t alsosuggestswhatis at stakewhenethnographicerspectivesre aken ntoaccount n literacy esearch.

Literacynd iteraciesLiteracywasoncethought o be reading ndwriting,butit wasexpandedbyUNESCO (1957)toincludebasicmathematics. urther, ccordingoUNESCO,literacys a set of toolsneeded o func-tion in theeverydayivesof people(fora reviewofliteracydefinitions, eeVenezky,Wagner,&Ciliberti, 1990). Following the leadershipofUNESCO, in a number of socialistcountries, na-tional programsand campaignswere launched undervariousbannersto improveoverallliteracy.However,these met with limited success (Gillette, 1999).Since the mid-1970s, a number of social scien-tists have taken fresh looks at national literacy pro-gramsand at the singularconcept of literacy.Someresearcherswere psychologistswith a cross-culturalperspective.Forexample, Scribnerand Cole (1981)


4/9

236 Reading Research Quarterly APRIL/MAY/JUNE 2004 39/2

working n Liberia,Heath(1983) in theUnitedStates,and otherssuggestedhatresearchershouldresistmakingbroad tatements boutliteracy nd itsconsequencessocialorcognitive)becausehereexistavariety f literacy ractices swellasliteracy vents(respectively)hatarecrucial n understandingheinputsmade ntopromoting iteracy ndtheout-comesof literacy rograms ndactivities acom-pendiumon such ssuesmaybeseeninWagner,Venezky,& Street,1999).Amongthefirst o take heperspectivef mul-tiple iteracies ndformalizet throughethnographicresearchntoa coherentandcomprehensivep-proachwasBrianStreet 1984), a British-trainedn-thropologist. treetdeveloped bimodaldistinctionforconceptualizingiteracy.One modeconsideredliteracy s a tool (ortechnology)orproducing ndunderstanding ritten ext,which he called he au-tonomous odel of literacy, nd one considerediter-acy n its fullestcultural ontext,whichhe called heideological odel of literacy.Basedon his initialfieldworkn prerevolutionaryran n the 1970s,Street ound thattheofficialFarsiliteracy, sedbytheIraniangovernmentn itsliteracy ampaign ndin formalschooling,conformed o theautonomousmodel,whiletheArabic-languageiteracy,earned nIslamic choolsand used foravariety f everydaytasksincluding mall-businessenterprises,on-formed o theideologicalmodel.BecauseArabicandFarsiliteracydiffer romeachother,Street laimedthattheyshouldbe calleddifferentiteracies, sdis-tinctfrom,butrelatedo, thepractice ndeventper-spectivesorwardedarlierbyScribner nd Cole(1981) andHeath(1983).Coincidentally,used asimilarapproacho the term iteraciesn thesameyear,withresearchn a remarkablyimilarsetting(alsoon Islamic ducation)n Morocco(Wagner,1983;Wagner,Messick,& Spratt,1986).However,Streetwenton to elaboratehe termliteraciesn awaythatpushed ntoa numberof quitedifferentdirections.Street'sprolificwork n thisareahas edto anumberof important esearchpublications nd to acoterie of collaboratorswho have largelyadopted hisethnographicapproach.The term literacies as beenpicked up and adaptedby many who have been pre-viously frustratedby the singularnotion of literacyasa unique "tool" hat is or isn'tpossessedby individu-als to varyingdegrees.From the perspectiveof manyanthropologistsand ethnographers-akin to theirearlierviews on intelligence and intelligence testing-literacy in the singularis something appropriatedby cognitivists, school pedagogues, and reading spe-cialistswhose principalgoal seems to be the pur-

veyanceof efficient ormal choolingon theonehandand formalized dult iteracyprogramsn theother.Further,many(if not most) individualswhoseliteracyallsbelowpar n termsof statisticaltan-dardsare romethnolinguisticminoritygroups.Anthropologistsndethnographersftenattributethisdescriptiono a lackof cultural ensitivity ythosepursuingheautonomousmodel.Eitherdirectly r indirectly,hefive booksre-viewedhereowe their ntellectual rigins o theethnographichallenge nda cultural onceptionofliteracies. he perspectivef thesebookscontrastswith universalistic,sychometricallyrivenmodelsof reading ndwriting hatarethought o be"cul-turefree."

Pluralizingiteracy,ulture,anddevelopmentStreet ntroduces is editedvolume,LiteracyandDevelopment,itha seminaldescription ndoverview f hisnearly wo decadesof workfosteringthe notionthat iteracy an no longerbe seenasasingular oncept hatcanbeappliedacross ontextswith similar ffect.Toquote,Literacy is not just a set of uniform "technical skills" to beimparted to those lacking them-the "autonomous"model-but ratherherearemultiple iteraciesn communi-tiesand...literacyractices resocially mbedded. p. 2)The alternative,deologicalmodel...offers moreculturallysensitive iewof literacy ractices stheyvary romonecon-textto another;t posits nstead hat iteracys a socialprac-tice.... It is about knowledge:the ways in which peopleaddress eadingandwritingare themselves ootedin con-ceptionsof knowledge,dentityandbeing.(p.7)

Accordingo Street, hemeanings ndprac-ticesof literacy realways ontested;particularer-sionsandinterpretationsf literacy re"alwaysrooted n a particular orld-view nda desire orthatview to dominateand to marginalizethers"p.8). This perspectiveopens the concept of literacytoa rangeof interpretations ust as Gardner(1983) didwith intelligence. Nearly anyone with local knowl-edge or anecdotal information now is permitted, in-deed encouraged,to challengeefforts that appeartoimpose literacyhegemonically upon any group. Theliteraciesmovement (or New LiteracyStudies, assome call it) challengesnot only the cognitive tradi-tion but even more directlychallengesthose doingliteracywork in developing countrieswhere issuesof


5/9


dominance,hierarchy,ndpowerareapparentomost observers.The mostobviousexampleof theideologicaldimensionof literacy tworkappearswhendevelop-ingcountries' fficialsobligeboth in-schoolandout-of-school earnerso usenonindigenousanguagesthatarenationalandoften colonial.Nearlyeverychaptern Street'sLiteracyndDevelopment,ndes-pecially hosebyDyerandChoksi,Papen,Wright,Aikman,Herbert ndRobinson,andZubair,akesexception o the notionof a singleautonomous iter-acy.Rather,heyexploreavariety f languages ndliteraciesmultipleanguages,cripts,practices) sawayof interpreting hattheyperceive s thefailureof bothschool-based ndadult iteracyprograms.Forexample,Aikman inStreet) tates,

Forthe entirecourseof its existence, ormalschoolinghasbeensynonymouswith Spanish anguageeducationand,moreover,"knowingSpanish"whetherwrittenand/orspo-kenhas continued o besynonymouswithbeing"civilized,""developed,"modern,"nd Peruvian.(p. 110)(Thus),the (local)Harakmbutlanguage-a keyto knowl-edge,thespiritworld,andreproduction-isthecornerstoneof (their) elf-developmentgenda. p. 117)

Numerous haptersn thisvolumemake hepointthat ocalindigenousanguagesmustberein-forcedand usedbygovernmentiteracyproviders.Thispointis not an unknownorunexploredssue,however.Few iteracy pecialistsrgovernment ffi-cialsworking n thesesocieties mainlydevelopingcountries) reunaware f thedifficulties osedbychoosing helanguage f instructionn a multilin-gualsociety-especiallywhereresourcesindevelop-ingcountriesn particular)onstraingovernment'scapabilityn providing dequate esources,materialandhuman, o teach n all thelanguages eeded.Atthesame ime,theymust balance thercompetingneeds ornationalhomogeneity nd economicgrowth,whicharebelieved o be tied to national(colonial)anguage ommerce.Forexample,hechapterbyHerbert ndRobinson providesa helpful and nuanced approachto the particularrelationshipsthat can and do existbetween spoken languagesand their written equiva-lents in Ghana. As they say,

(E)achliteracy s practiced n different anguages,and issomewhatdifferent n eachcase.Do differences ependon(specific)anguages? robablynot, at leastnot on languagealone.Alongwithlanguage ifferenceso culturalpatterns,made up of ancestral customs, historical antecedents, exter-nalinfluences, ndpolitical orces....Localpeopleareusingliteraciesortheirown purposesand in the languages hey

want to use-a hopeful ign n acontinentwhereotherpeo-ple'sagendas avedominated ortoo long. (p. 134)What seemsclear romtheHerbert ndRobinson hapter n Ghanaandfrom several thers

is thattalkingabouta singleculture s not appropri-ate,especiallywhen thereareoverlappinganguages,scripts, eligions, ndethnicities tplay.Fromanoutsider's erspective,nemightbeableto trytospeakabouta "national"anguage r a national"lit-eracy" olicy,butthecloseronelooks,the moreoneseesthatthereexistsno singleGhanaianulture,butrather ultures,anguagesanddialectswithin an-guages), thnicities, ribalauthorities, nd so forth.Itis no wonder, hen,thatthesimplisticnotionsoferadicatinglliteracyhatwerepopularn UnitedNationsstatements fterWorldWar I gavewaytomorebalanced pproachesegarding ho is who in asocietyandwho mightwant iteracy.Whenviewedthisway, iteracy anbeseenmore n termsof aquestion hanasapredeterminedeedor value.In a compellingafterword,Rogersquestionswhathe calls he "traditionalictureof the relation-shipbetween iteracy nd(international)evelop-ment...(namely)hatthere s a direct elationshipbetween he two" p.205; emphasisn theoriginal).Rogersgoeson to suggest,asdo most authorsn thevolume,thatknowingwhat iteracy ndilliteracy c-tuallymean n mostsocietiess so contextdependentthatdeterminingausalitys a dubious ask.He rec-ommendsproblematizingevelopmentn awaypar-allelto literacy.n hiswords,"whosedevelopment"(p.211) is it anyway?He suggests"multiple evelop-ments" ndstates"like iteracies,hesevariousdevel-opmentsareoftenin contestonewithanother"p.213). Moreconcretely,hismightmean hata gov-ernmentminister'snterestn loweringlliteracy atesmay, n theend,have ittlebearing n ruralpoorpeople'sneeds o havemore obsor saferdrinkingwater.Insum,Street'sLiteracyndDevelopmentuc-ceedsmorethananyotherrecentvolume n openingup-indeed pluralizing-terms hatmanythoughtcould be dealt with in the singularwithout riskofmisinterpretation.Each of the four remainingvol-umes consideredin this reviewsupportssuch a prob-lematizationof the single term literacy.

ConceptsndpoliciesAn important book from a policy perspectiveisthe one edited by David R. Olson and NancyTorrance, TheMaking ofLiterateSocieties.This


6/9


volumepresents seriesof conceptual ndhistoricalperspectivesn literacy crossime,witha special o-cus on developing ountries.Perhapsmostimpressiveis theintroductoryhapterbytheeditors hatseeksawayto balance heseemingly ontrastingiewsofliteracy sa personalkillthatcan haveconsequencesfor thepersonandhisor heroptions n lifewiththatof literacy sa socialpracticehatcannotbe removedfromsocietal ontexts.The authorsnotetheimpor-tanceof literacy, ffirminghat t canhaverealcon-sequences thoughnot onesalignedwithsimplisticmetaphorsiketurningon aperson's cognitiveight-bulb").At thesame ime,OlsonandTorranceaythatliteracys "not hesolution o a hostof social llsincludingpoverty,malnutrition, ndunemploy-ment.It is not, in mostcases,evenrelevanto the so-lutionof thoseproblems"p. 13).Theygo on to saythat"[it]does not follow thatliteracy houldplaynorole n socialdevelopment ndculturalchange," ndtheyconclude hatrealpedagogiesxistfor realpeo-ple that canandwillmakea differencen "institu-tionalcontexts...inwhichreading ndwritingcanplaya roleof perceivedignificance"nd in "com-munitiesandinstitutionso whichaccess s givenbyvirtueof being iterate o that earners resociallyempowered ytheirparticipation"p. 15).A numberof chaptersn TheMakingofLiterate ocietiesemindus of theStreetvolume,astheyfocuson theimportance f localcontextandtheneed to considermultilingualisms a keyfactorin literacy evelopment.Forexample,Akohapointsout thatin BeninandBurkina-Fasoocallanguagesarenotjustimportantorimproving iteracy mongpoorpeople; heyalso(recalling reire's ork)willhelpto "decolonize urminds"(p. 149).The authorsuggestshatindigenousanguages re heonlywayforward, venthoughnationalpolicy n bothcoun-triesappears pposed o such anapproach.Akohaconcludes hatnationalpolicymakersackthepoliti-calwill to challengeheAfricanFrench-speakingelite.

Fagerberg-Dialloakesa similarpoint,on amoreoptimisticnote,in herchapter n thesignifi-cant progressmade in literacydevelopment amongthe Pulaarethnic group in Senegal.While Frenchisstill the predominant national language, Pulaar iter-acy is growing rapidlyin perhapsone of the bestprogramsof indigenous literacyin Africa. Indeed,Fagerberg-Diallostates that the newly literatePulaarcall themselves"literacymilitants" on a "crusade osee that each community sets up and participates nlocal Pulaar iteracyclasses" p. 156). Whether as acause or a consequence of this program,theSenegalesegovernment actuallyset up a special

ministry orliteracy nd nationalanguages,whichis one of thefew of its kindin theworld.FromFagerberg-Diallo'serspective,he Pulaar xperiencerepresents blendof both autonomous ndideologi-calmodels,as"l[n]ewiterates anveryclearlydenti-fy both thecognitiveand thesocialgains heyhavemadethroughbecoming iterate.Furthermore,hesegainsarerealized othon apersonaleveland on thelevelof the entirecommunity"p. 173).In a laterchapter n thePhilippines,Doronilaechoes hesame ntegrative pproach, uggestinghatthe "rela-tionship...betweeniteracy ndthe eradication fpovertys not simpleandstraightforward"p.254).Doronilaclaims hatgainswillrequiremprovementin teaching kills,moreof a focuson livelihoodandincomegeneration, nd anintegration f literacywith other ifeactivities.

Toward heendof TheMakingofLiterateSocieties, ithchapters nJapan,Mexico,andGermany,C.J.Daswanipresents omeinterestingn-sightson therelationshipetween iteracy ndpowerin India,whichhe callsparadoxicallyegative.Oneinsight s in referenceo the Hindiwordforliterate,whichcan be writtenas"raakshas,ean ing]a 'de-mon'" p. 290). Bythis,Daswani uggestshat iter-atepersons,perhapshe Indianeducated lites,aresometimes eenasbecomingdemon-like,beingableto controlothers.Thisthoughtcertainlymusthaveoccurredo manyunschooledpeoples n manycountries round he worldover hecenturies.In the finalchapter n development olicyfor-mation,Jungand Ouaneargue, ikemanywho haveappeared lreadyn thisreview,hat iteracy"isnot amagicwandthatwill transform rovertyntowealth,"but it mayenable"personsndgroups oachieve heirownrightsandgoals" p.333).Thefirstcomment itswell withpreceding thnographicaccounts,whilethe latter eems till to beproblem-atic basedon thefindingspresentedn theOlsonandTorranceolume.

Languagesnd iteraciesIs the pluralizationof literacy o literacies quiv-alent to that of pluralizinglanguage o languages? remultiple iteracies he same as multiliteracies?nMultilingualLiteraciesMarilynMartin-JonesandKathrynJones address this issue in 16 chaptersthatdeal principallywith literacy(and literacies)in mul-tilingual societies.As the editors state,Focusing on the pluralityof literacies means recognising thediversity of reading and writing practices and the different


7/9


genres,styles and types of texts associatedwith variousactivities,domainsor social identities.... In multilingualcontexts,differentanguages,anguage arieties ndscriptsadd other dimensionsto the diversityand complexityofliteracies.p. 5)In the firstchapter f thisvolume,Streetpro-videshisresponseo the abovequestion.He statesthat the termsmultipleiteraciesndmultiliteraciesshouldnot be used nterchangeably;ndeed,withbothterms, here swhathe callsa "dangerf reifica-tion" p. 19), in thesense hatthesetermsmightbe-comeseenoutsideof ordivorcedromcontextand

practice.Rather, treet uggestshat theplurality fliteracy houldbecentered n thesocialpracticesowhichlanguages ndliteracies reput.He concludeswithhisownchallengeo theethnographers,amelyto "movebeyondsimply heoreticalritiques f theautonomousmodelandto developpositivepropos-alsfor interventionsn curriculum,measurementri-teriaandteacher ducation"p.29).In the diverse haptershatfollow nMultilingual iteracies,hich embrace roupsrang-ingfrom EastLondonnatives o ChineseandGujaratimmigrants,esearcherslaborate n thispointbydescribingn detail hevarioususesforwhichwrittenlanguages reemployed.For nstance,written anguage sesaredescribed mongBritishCreoleaswellasexpertwritingmediatorsBaynhamandMasing).Still,whether hisvolumevalidatesStreet'sarlier ommentaboutmultipleandmultilit-eraciess unclear.Byshowing hat iteracypracticesare ightlywoven ntoparticularthnolinguisticon-texts,onewonders oris it wanders?)mong hevar-iegatedandscape f multiple anguages ndmultipleliteracies ndquestionswhetheror not anygroundhas beengained.Is languageundamentally singleentitythatisplayedout in many,manydifferentwaysaroundtheworld,and,assuch, s it largely rnearly ynony-mous withliteracy? hisquestioncanbestudiedin infinitevariation cross imeandspace,asHornbergermplies n her afterwordo thisvolume.The fundamentaldifferenceseems to stem from thefact that languagelearningis naturalfor nearlyallhumans, while literacyis not. Or isliteracylearningnatural? f all parentsin the world were literateintheir mother tongues, and if all childrenwere as sur-rounded by print material as they areby oral lan-guage, would so many remain illiterate? f childrenwere engagedwith print materialsthat were equiva-lent to their oral languageenvironments, would theynaturallygrow up as proficientwith readingand

writingastheywouldwithlisteningandspeaking?One is leftwondering.In thetwo finalbooksof thisreview, imilarconceptualssuesareraised,but in muchmorede-tailedethnographicasestudies.DavidBartonandMaryHamilton'sLocalLiteracies,orexample,pro-videsa richandcomprehensiveortrait f literacypracticesn a singlemid-sizedownin contemporaryBritain.Coininga termthatreinforces stronglanguage-basedonceptualizationf literacies,heauthors ocuson whattheycallvernaculariteracypractices---thosehatare"rootedn everydayxperi-enceandserveeveryday urposes"p.251). Inaddi-tion to several ategories f observediteracypracticeshatseemobvious e.g.,organizingife,per-sonalcommunication, ndprivateeisure),BartonandHamiltondescribehreerather ubtleeverydayliteracypracticeshatemergedrom theirethno-graphic esearchdocumentingife,sensemaking,and socialparticipation).akentogether,hesesixformsof literacy ractices an,as the authors ay,becontrastedwith dominantiteracypracticeshatfollowfromformaleducation, eligion,andtheworkplace.Accordingo BartonandHamilton,animpor-tantpointis thatdominantpracticesendto "requireexpertsand teachershroughwhom access o knowl-edge s controlled"p.22), whilevernaculariteracyis acquiredmainly hroughactiveuseandpracticewith thosewho simplyknowmore hanoneself.Thisshouldcomeasno surprise.Nevertheless,heimplications thatbyreifyinghenonformaldimen-sionof literacyearning ndproduction,BartonandHamiltonsupport henotionthatvernaculariteracyplaysanessential,ndeedcrucial, ole n people'slives-one thatcouldenhancepeople'smotivationforlearninghewritten orm.TomasMarioKalmar'sllegalAlphabetsndAdultBiliteracyresents finelydetailed thnogra-phyof Mexicanmigrantswhohavesettled n a smallrural ommunityn southern llinois. tdepicts hestruggle f adult mmigrantso learnanduseEnglishasa second anguagen therealworld,notjustaworld dominated by teacher,text, and learner.Thissmallvolume is a classicethnography,with partici-pant observations,capturednotes and clippings, in-terviewsfully laid out, and occasional interpretationsby the author.However, the text is somewhat diffi-cult to follow when the migrantsareportrayedusingwhat is termed illegalSpanishlanguageand literacyskills in English, what the author calls the grammarequivalentof illegal chess moves.IllegalAlphabetsndAdultBiliteracyooksmuch like what was termed socioliteracybove, a


8/9


writtenversionof sociolinguistic iscourse ndanalyses,withconsiderableemphasisplacedontranscriptionsf theoralandwrittenrecord.Emphasiss placedon howthemigrants reate"hybrid"peechandalphabets ut of theirdailyuseof SpanishandEnglish.Kalmar'satatranscriptionseelreal, ome-thingthat s one of thestrengths f theethnographicchallengeo the morequantified pproachesf edu-cationalresearch.Readersanreadilybelieve hesedataandthusseethatthere s moreto literacyn thissetting hansimply earning itherSpanish rEnglish inguistic ystems.AsGee writes n athoughtful oreword o theKalmar olume,

[L]iteracys not firstandforemosta mentalpossessionofindividuals.Rather t is firstand foremosta socialrelation-shipamongpeople, heirwayswithwords,deeds,andthingsand their nstitutions.Literacys primarily ndfundamen-tallyout in thesocial,historical,ultural ndpoliticalworld.It isonlysecondarilyset of cognitive kills, killswhichsub-serve iteracies ssocialacts n quitediverseways n differ-ent contexts.(p. iv)Bartonand Hamiltonand Kalmarhowaworldof literacy:eading,writing,andspeakinghatblendtogetherandarenot easilydisentangled. heirworkcontrastswithpsychometricesearchhat triesto channeldata ntoconvenientcategories. heseethnographiesepresentheNew Literacy tudieswherein he termliteracies ostcomfortablyesides.

Conclusions:heethnographicchallengeSeveral ecadesagothesociolinguistic omainin thesocialsciencesmadegoodon itschallengeoformallinguistics, ndpsycholinguistics,n howin-dividualsearnlanguage.Thevolumesbriefly e-viewedhere ndicate hattheethnographichallengein literacy tudiesalso s here o stay.Thisseemssoeven n thefaceof continuingpoliticalefforts,atleast n the UnitedStates, o reinforcehe need forstrictlyquantitativeexperimentalstudies of how se-lected and stratifiedsamplesof subjectslearnto read.The ethnographicapproachis a challengeto thosewho would seek to summarize data using statisticalaveragesand approximativecoding schemes.In a not very scientificway of speaking,youget what you pay for.Neither extreme-qualitativeor quantitative-is likely to give the full pictureofliteracy(ies)learningand uses in society.Are thereproblemswith the ethnographicapproachbeyond

thoseexemplified ythe abovevolumes?No doubt,reservationsbound.Mostimportant,heresearchaudienceoften lacksa frameof referenceorintegrat-ing subjective atasuch as thatreportedorKalmar'sMexicanmigrants. omeethnographieslsoreadmore ike casestudieswithweakconceptualbases incontrast o most of what s in thevolumesreviewedherein).Further,esearchers ustbe cautiouswhennew termsarecoinedthatmayobscure rconfusemeaning, specially mongpractitioners. iteraciesmaybe such a case,becausepolicymakers ill (andalready o)wonderwhat this meansafteryearsof us-ing thesingular.Naturally,hisopensup manyav-enuesfor futher nvestigation.WhenLiteracy,CulturendDevelopmentWagner, 993)waspub-lishedovera decadeago,it seemedreasonablyafetoassume hat eachof the nounswouldstaysingular.Timeshavechanged,or have hey?As the United NationsLiteracyDecadecontin-ues,a renewed mphasis n globalchallenges ndanincreasedocuson reachinghepoorestof thepoorare nevitable.Whatsuccessmaybe achievedn theremaining earswill surelydependon researchhatconsidershe behavior f realpeople n real imeinvaried ulturalworlds.The field of literacy,speciallywhenfocusedon thosemostmarginalized, illneedto address hehybrid ituations f peopleoftencaughtbetween wo or moreworlds,worlds hatdonot lend themselveso priororunchanging ate-goriesof reference. he kindsof researcheportednthesevolumes-each ofwhichtakes iteracy,ulture,anddevelopmentn its mostpluralizedorm-willnecessarilyecomea greater nd morevocalpartoftheongoingdiscussion f howto promotea moreliterateworld.DANIEL.WAGNERsprofessorfEducationndDirectorf heNationalenternAdultiteracyt heUniversityfPennsylvania,whichncludeshe ederallyunded .S.NationalechnologyLaboratoryorLiteracyndAdult ducation.es alsoDirectorf heInternationaliteracynstitute,oestablishedyUNESCOndheUniversityfPennsylvania.agneras xtensivexperiencennationalndnternationalducationalssues.He anbecontactedtNationalenternAdultiteracy/Internationaliteracynstitute,UniversityfPennsylvania,910Chestnutt.,Philadelphia,A19104-3111, SA,rby -mail [email protected].

REFERENCESARNOVE, R.F., & GRAFF,H.J. (Eds.). (1988). Nationalliteracycampaigns.ew York:Plenum.FREIRE,P. (1981).PedagogyftheoppressedewYork:Continuum.(Originalworkpublished1970)GARDNER,H. (1983). Frames fmind:The heory f multiplentel-ligences. ew York:BasicBooks.GILLETTE, A. (1999). The Experimental World Literacy Program:A unique nternational ffortrevisited.n D.A. Wagner Ed.), Theuture


9/9


ofliteracyin a changingworld 2nd ed., pp. 353-372). Cresskill,NJ:HamptonPress.HEATH, S.B. (1983). Wayswith words.New York:CambridgeUniversityPress.MILLER,V. (1985).Betweenstrugglendhope:TheNicaraguaniter-acycrusade. enver,CO:Westview.SCRIBNER, S., & COLE, M. (1981). Thepsychology f literacy.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.STREET, B. (1984). Literacy n theoryand practice.London:CambridgeUniversityPress.UNESCO. (1957). Worldlliteracyt mid-century.aris:Author.VENEZKY,R., WAGNER,D.A., & CILIBERTI, . (1990). (Eds.).Towarddefiningiteracy. ewark,DE: InternationalReadingAssociation.WAGNER, D.A. (1983). Ethno-graphies:An introduction.Internationalournal ftheSociologyfLanguage,, 5-8.WAGNER,D.A. (1989). Literacy ampaigns: ast,presentand fu-ture.Comparativeducation eview, 3, 256-260.

WAGNER,D.A. (1992).Literacy: eveloping he future.UNESCOYearbookofEducation,Vol.43. Paris:UNESCO.WAGNER,D.A. (1993). Literacy,ulture nddevelopment:ecomingliteraten Morocco. ew York:CambridgeUniversityPress.WAGNER, D.A., MESSICK, B.M., & SPRATT, J. (1986).Studying iteracy n Morocco. In B.B. Schieffelin& P. Gilmore(Eds.),Theacquisitionof literacy:Ethnographic erspectivespp. 233-260).Norwood,NJ:Ablex.WAGNER,D.A., VENEZKY,R.L.,& STREET,B. (Eds.). 1999).Literacy:n international andbook. oulder,CO: WestviewPress.

AUTHOR'S NOTEThis articlewas partially upportedby funding from the SpencerFoundation.The authorwould also like to thank David Moore for his

veryhelpfuleditorialguidance n an earlier ersionof this review.

AsPi ~~~~b ~~~~f00V~S 9 IB~~~~18~Beginningwith theJanuary/February/March005issue,Reading esearchuarterly'sssayBookReview ditorwill beShelleyHongXu.Effectivemmediately,ooks orpotential eviewmaybesentto Xuat theaddress elow.ShelleyHongXu9090MoodyStreet 121Cypress, A90630,USA

wagner literacyies rrq 04

Documents