Beyond Instrumental Literacy: Discourse Ethics and Literacy Education

Literacy education concerns itself with assessing student needs and determining the appropriate methods for meeting them, without considering the ethical framework in which those "needs" find meaning. This paper argues that a notion of reflective communication, based on Jurgen Habermas's theory of "Discourse," provides an alternative ideal for literacy education that avoids reduction to political or economic function while taking into account profound social differences. Discourse highlights a fundamental dimension of language that is undeveloped in current literacy practices: the cognitive and emotive ability to consciously reflect on validity claims and adopt unfamiliar perspectives. Discourse also provides an ideal that both identifies the pragmatic function that literacy plays in social life and distances it from any determinate social function, allowing it to be made meaningful for learners at different educational levels and with different social backgrounds. Considered are both Paulo Freire's laying the groundwork for the discussion of literacy as a practice that helps give meaning to human existence and George Herbert Mead's alternative conception of meaning that understands language as product of social interaction. The paper hopes to clarify what is intrinsically valuable about literacy education, even in contexts that seem to be dominated by economic considerations, and thus give teachers and learners an increased sense of importance in their work. Contains 24 notes. (NKA) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION y hisdocum ent CENTER (ERIC) Tent has beer, reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. ° Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. Beyond Instrumental Literacy: Discourse Ethics and Literacy Education Benjamin J. Endres Teachers College, Columbia University 1 PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Literacy may be seen as a good from a number of perspectives that are in direct tension: Some see literacy as means to increasing production, others as the basis for participatory democracy, and still others as a catalyst for social revolution. Without clarification, these conflicting objectives will obviously tend to produce incoherent curricula and standards, undermining our confidence in the value of literacy education. This conceptual ambiguity is tied to the more serious problem of a failure in the prevailing accounts of literacy to conceive of their goals independently of particular political and economic functions. To see the learner as merely preparing for a determinate social function such as filling the current needs of the job market, suggests that there is only a practical problem of supplying the student with a set of "tools" to fulfill their function in society. Literacy education then concerns itself with assessing student needs and determining the appropriate methods for meeting them, without considering the ethical framework in which those "needs" find meaning. This ethical context must be critically engaged in order to provide both clarity and a deeper, non-mechanical sense of purpose to literacy practice. In response to this instrumental conception of literacy, I argue that a notion of reflective communication, based on JUrgen Habermas's theory of "Discourse," provides an alternative ideal for literacy education that avoids reduction to political or economic function while taking into account profound social differences. Discourse highlights a fundamental dimension of language that is undeveloped in current literacy practices: the cognitive and emotive ability to consciously reflect on validity claims and adopt unfamiliar perspectives. I argue that Discourse provides an ideal that both identifies the pragmatic function that 0 literacy plays in social life and distances it from any determinate social N function, allowing it to be made meaningful for learners at different educational 2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE levels and with different social backgrounds. Literacy can be understood as an objective social scientific category referring to the basic ability to read and write, through such tests as merely signing one's name, filling out a job application, or reading a bus schedule. Using literacy as a quantifiable category of research allows for interesting studies on the relation of reading and writing to other aspects of social life. Social scientific study of literacy can also provide fruitful comparisons of cultures that are "literate" with those that are "oral."' Furthermore, one can approach literacy from the standpoint of developmental psychology, studying the cognitive dimension of language acquisition, reading, and writing. However, my use of "literacy" refers not only to the discrete skills of reading or writing, but more generally, to the set of educational practices that provide basic education in the industrialized West. While these practices include the work done in primary and secondary schools, literacy education usually highlights practices outside the schools and universities that are explicitly and exclusively concerned with the provision of basic skills. English as a second language (ESL), adult basic education (ABE), and high school equivalency (GED) study are some of the most common types of basic education programs. Literacy education in this sense aims at a state of "literacy" for its students which is usually meant to be the minimum standard of education for successful participation in society, especially in the contexts of work and citizenship. However, this standard is difficult, if not impossible, to define in a useful way. Since these students have often fulfilled the most rudimentary standards for being able to read and write, classifying their needs becomes problematic. The coherence and focus for literacy practices must then derive from a standard, not in the sense of a fixed educational "level," but in the sense of ideals that are used to guide literacy practitioners and students in diverse contexts and varying educational levels. Yet such ideals often take the form of vague, romantic appeals to "personal growth" and "empowerment" that are difficult to implement and often have a condescending tone toward the students.? As a result, the search for clarity and explicit goals has lead to the restriction of literacy to specific "functions": by analyzing the essential functions of a citizen or worker, policy makers have hoped to create curricula to prepare students to fill these precise roles. While this does little to address the problem of general literacy goals, "functional literacy" embodies one of the strongest tendencies in the field of basic education because it connects study with very tangible "outcomes" in a way that is meant to satisfy the learner and the provider of the education. Policymakers and students alike are often most concerned with the goal of work, so they will naturally agree that study should be directed at only those skills that are clearly needed on the job. The workplace can supposedly provide specific guidelines for literacy, while meeting both individual and societal needs. There are so many critiques of this position in education, both radical and conservative, that I will not spend much time responding to it. This picture of