Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

emmagulley's picture

Literacy = Integral to Childhood?

I've been thinking about the relationship between childhood and literacy, and the more I think about it, the more and more it seems as though literacy is inherently integral to childhood.  Even the term “childhood” can vary greatly, and the concept of "childhood" is actually a pretty modern, culture-specific construct.  

That said, if we no longer assume that “children”--i.e. humans younger than 10--all over the world have “childhood” in common, what do they have in common?  I believe that when we pose “literacy” as a social form of communication, we can ascertain that literacy is an integral part of “childhood.”  Since all children have some form of communication within their communities and thus navigate their own realities, all children are inherently “literate”--and, indeed, fluent in their own realities.  That fluent literacy may not look the same in sub saharan Africa as it does in Tokyo, but assuming a child can communicate his needs, wants, and thoughts to members of the community--even if not necessarily using verbal indicators--he is inherently literate in the infrastructure of his community.  Just as we need to appreciate the theory of multiple intelligences in classrooms, so too do we need to address, internalize, and accept the “theory of multiple and inherent literacies” on the global, almost anthropological level.  

However, I've also thought of a situation that somewhat confuses/complicates my idea, at least for me:  if we assume the “literacy” is inherently a form of give-and-take/communication, and if we assume that all “older” humans negotiate their own literacies in their own cultures because “all” [sic] humans can express their own needs and wants, where does this leave members of the community who express their own needs and wants, but not necessarily consciously, "thoughtfully" [sic] or mechanically?  For example, if we consider a baby who cries when she is hungry--do we want to suggest that habit is her own form of literacy?  If she is able to "communicate" a need to someone around her?  Or is "Literacy" more about participating in a two-way-street, in which case a caregiver's reaction to a baby's needs would not be in the same discourse, and therefore would not be considered a literacy?  

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
1 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.