An interesting point: “Many languages do no have a word for literacy…two African languages…Xhosa and Sotho do not contain words for ‘literacy’ and ‘illiteracy’…More recently, literacy has been defined as a social practice” (Janks, 2010, p.1-2). Emphatically, I believe in what Stern (2008) identifies as, “…a sociocultural approach to identity, which emphasizes the role society plays in creating the conditions that encourage young people to address the matter of identity” (p.96). Literacy as a “social practice” is informed by those sociocultural factors, creating “conditions” and mediums through which people can express their identity. In the absence of literacy as a social practice, in the case of societies where literacy is not defined, people approach identity in other equally as meaningful ways. Fredrick Douglass said, “I didn't know I was a slave until I found out I couldn't do the things I wanted” (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/f/frederick_douglass.html). Obviously, he was unaware of this imposed identity until he engaged society.
The appeal that youth today have to digital media is bound up in the ways in which education, literacy, power, culture, and identity converge in our present society. The need to have a presence and to be valued in a given society is timeless. How that presence is expressed has evolved, in that it is now articulated as a social practice in ways that demonstrate multiliteracies – to include web pages, blogs, and social networking sites. Our present sociocultural climate encourages youth to “look to their social world for cues about what principles and traits to internalize…” (Stern, 2008, p.97). What are some of those cues? Celebrities and pop stars divulge virtually every detail about their personal lives on the internet; and “Virtually all “real” and “wanna-be” stars have web pages and blog…” (Stern, 2008, p.101). These internalized clues have further implications for technology, education, and society because they signal to youth a hidden agenda for why, how, when, and for what purposes digital media is to be used. What is even more alarming is that at the root of this hidden agenda is the word “self,” (the ego), not identity (character). The result is the use of digital media to develop ego with a total disregard for the development of character. On the surface, Stern (2008) appears to be neutral in her examination of the why/how youth express themselves on the internet using various digital genres. In truth, she has bought into the hype – “the cultural value of self-promotion” (Stern, 2008, p.101). As a result, her piece, “Producing Sites, Exploring Identities: Youth Online Authorship,” offers limited insight into what the future holds for this sociocultural orientation toward the exaltation of self via digital media.
"Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Proverbs 6:2). Stern (2008) reports: "Youth authors' desire to address the public is not simply about actually being heard (or read) by many people, but also about feeling empowered by the mere prospect of mass reception" (p.104). My concern is what message(s) are youth authors sending that are being received by the masses? And why are they not concerned about what affect those messages are having in the lives of others? I think the answer to both questions is a reflection of an even greater hidden agenda: They are not responsible for anyone other than themselves.
The birth of a vision: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/26676395#26676395
I think the real reason why there is no word for 'literacy' or 'illiteracy' in those cultures is the absence of self-exaltation to another's detriment.
