The Effects of Illiteracy on Society

The Effects of Illiteracy on Society

“Illiteracy is an inability to use language--an inability to read, write, listen, and speak. It is usually taken to mean being unable to read and write at a level adequate for written communication or at a level that will allow an individual to function at certain levels of society” (Buchanan, 2016). Illiteracy is an almost forgotten issue in today’s society. Back in the 1800’s, literacy was reserved for the upper class, it was a privilege (Castro-Caldas, 1997). However, now, we simply expect everyone to be literate. With public schools being free, and required through the age of 16, it is simply anticipated for those above the age of ten to know how to read and write. As illiteracy continues to be a societal problem, and as more research is developed, it has been seen that illiteracy can also cause health issues, turning it into a scientific/health problem. In “Illiteracy and Older Adults: Individual and Societal Implications” Sarah Roman takes a sociological approach through statistical data, and definitions of broad literacy issues that are then narrowed down and explained in further details. Whereas, in “Neuropsychological Aspects of Illiteracy”, Caldas, Reis, and Guerreiro look at how illiteracy affects different parts of the brain through scientific data, graphs, and historical backgrounds. Throughout both texts, illiteracy is defined in different ways, but through both contexts, it is defined as a negative individual as well as societal effect. By using both approaches, illiteracy can be more fully explained and explored, leading to a more effective solution when compared and contrasted, yielding a productive collaboration.

To fully understand how illiteracy has had an effect, and to see where it has had its greatest impact, it first needs to be defined per context, which is exactly what Sarah Roman does. She breaks down her article by different definitions of literacy. These definitions are not conflicting, but rather work together to create a better understanding of literacy and the effects it has had on individuals as well as society as a whole. Her first set of breakdowns is by types of literacy including: Functional, Health, Individual, Population, as well as ways to measure literacy. She then wraps up her article by presenting the individual versus societal implications of illiteracy and giving recommendations on how to proceed. Breaking it down this way, Roman gives a brief overview of how illiteracy needs to be seen, and then how to proceed with this knowledge. (Roman, 2004)

“Literacy is not a state of being, but a reflection of the relative fit between the individual’s various competencies and the social and historical environment” (Roman, 2004). Since literacy can be defined per context, Roman is careful to define what context she is investigating before diving further into the subject. “Very few individuals possessed basic literacy skills, because reading and writing were not necessary in early industrial and agricultural occupations” (Costa, 1988). Before she introduces further breakdowns of illiteracies societal implications, Roman also introduces a brief background of literacy. Interestingly enough, Castro-Caldas held the same approach in his article looking at the health effects of illiteracy. It’s important to know where we came from, in order to move forward, both in sociology and in health. In our changing world, the definition of literacy also changes. Rather than literacy strictly referring to reading and writing, it now also refers to the ability “to compute and solve problems, and use technology in order to become a lifelong learner and to be effecting in the family, in the workplace and in the community”, this is known as functional literacy (Roman,2004). Roman suggests that we constantly redefine literacy in order to accommodate the world we live in today. By starting with these broad definitions of literacy, and slowly becoming more detailed rather than generic, Roman is able to create a clearer picture of what it means to be illiterate. Moving from definitions to statistics and effects makes it easier for her audience to fully understand.

Measuring literacy is not a straightforward process, rather, it has become an issue of concern “to society at large, various techniques for measuring its prevalence have been developed” (Roman, 2004). These techniques are usually broken down to measure either individual literacy or population literacy. In 1992, a population literacy survey was conducted. According to the results, 23% of adults in this country are functioning at the lowest level of literacy; that’s roughly 44 million. Next, 25-28% of the adult population had level two literacy skills. Therefore, over half of adults in America had reading skills that were well below the 8th grade level. Only 3% of adults surveyed exhibited level five literacy skills. These facts are monumental, and devastating. Using statistics appeals to the audience’s logic, and makes us stop in our tracks and think about the effects that illiteracy can have (Roman, 2004). This same survey was most recently done in 2003, where 14% of American’s were below the basic literacy level and 29% exhibited the basic reading level. Furthermore, 14% of the population can’t read; 21% read below the 5th grade level, and 19% of high school graduates can’t read (Crum, 2014). These statistics are staggering. Roman knows that these will grab our attention. She also, as a sociologists, sees the need to look at the population statistics and then to dig deeper and find out their implications. These percentages can also change based on what definition of literacy is used.

Being a sociologists means taking population information and looking at its comparisons to individual information, and vice versa, and then applying both to societal problems. This is precisely what Roman does. She presents her data on individuals and population in statistical form so she shows she has research to back her up. “Studies have found that up to 70% of illiterate adults have not told their spouse and over 50% have not told their children. This poses a significant challenge with regard to addressing our literacy crisis” (Roman, 2014). Here is one example of looking at an individual action and then zooming out to look at the population in comparison, and then taking another step back to look at how it may affect society. “Zooming in” your societal scope to certain areas of the population can also be effective. Roman decides to look at how poverty and unemployment affects literacy, to give more insight and depth to her data. She then zooms out to see the bigger picture of illiteracy. It can have a large economic impact, as well as an impact on productivity in the workplace. Using all her data she has collected, as well as the ways she defined literacy, Roman uses her sociological skills to then interpret how we can make strides in eradicating literacy. Again, she focuses on ways to improve individualized instruction, and then a broader range of the population through communication in healthcare. (Roman, 2004)

Roman’s sociological approach helps us to determine how literacy affects the way we live and function as a society. Another approach to literacy is the scientific/ health side. Yes, literacy affects our population’s ability to function in the economy and the workplace, but furthermore, there has been research that illiteracy can affect our health and our brains. Castro-Caldas, Reis, and Guerreiro have studied the Neuropsychological Aspects of Illiteracy. Through scientific data, historical research, graphs, and conducting studies, they effectively show how literacy can affect brain function.

First, they give a historical background of theories of illiteracy effect on the brain, and look at how these theories can’t be entirely true because of their many flaws; this is the same thing Roman did: look back at past research and data in order to proceed. Next, they look at the literacy and oral language of non brain-damaged subjects. They work as a control group. Being scientists means that everything has a hypothesis, and in order to prove and test that hypothesis they have to have a control group. This article obviously reflects a scientific background due to their breakdown of groups into a control group as well as the experimental group. Their first experiment looked at how those who were literate compared to literate subjects in different tasks. First, they tested the subject’s abilities in repetition tasks of words and nonwords. “Adrian (1993) studied this problem in populations of different educational backgrounds and concluded that the capacity to use the phonological system was reduced in illiterate subjects” (Castro-Caldas, 1997). Here is another area that scientists are known for: breaking down their subject groups. Not only is there a control and experimental group, they are further broken down into their educational backgrounds. “The performance of illiterate subjects in this task revealed a poor capacity for segmental analysis and a tendency to process the meaning of the word rather than its form. This calls attention to the possibility that illiterate subjects prefer to process language through semantics rather than morphology” (Castro-Caldas, 1997). The article continues to explain how this hypothesis then needed to be tested, so a second test was designed. To further advance their studies, scientists continually have to make new hypotheses and to prove.

After considering subjects with fully functional brains, just differences of education, they looked at literacy and the cerebral representation of language mechanisms. Again, a historical background is given of past research in this particular study. In 1971, a study was published where transitory or persistent aphasia was present in 78% of the literate subjects, 64% of the semi-literate subjects, and in only 36% of the illiterate subjects. When a second study was performed, the results contradicted the findings in the 1971 study. Therefore further research needed to be done. This is an important aspect of the scientific world. The table above is a breakdown of the second study. It is used as a graphical tool in this article to make some of the scientific language easier to understand. (Castro-Caldas, 1997).

Lastly, they looked at illiteracy and other aspects of Neuropsychology. Neuropsychology is “the study of the relationship between behavior, emotion, and cognition on the one hand, and brain function on the other” (Google definitions). A study was conducted on a large test battery administered to extreme educational groups (non brain-lesioned illiterates and professionals). “The test battery included visuospatial, memory, language, and praxis abilities. There were differences in most of the subtests related to educational level” (Castro-Caldas, 1997). It then proceeds to break down each subtest and how it was related to each educational level. In scientific research it is important to be detailed and to look at every group possible so that your data is accurate and effective, and that is exactly what is done. At the end of the article, it is pointed out that there are more areas that need more detailed studies done, including calculation. One lady was able to make a list of telephone numbers using drawings to identify the person or the place and she also created her own system that involved the representation of the quantity for each digit. Some further research was done and a hypothesis was created that illiterate subjects have to memorise the quantity itself and not its symbolic representation. Again, we see the continuous cycle of studies being done to create new hypotheses. (Castro-Caldas, 1997)

Sociologists and Scientists look at the effects of illiteracy very differently, however, instead of presenting opposing ideas, they work together to give us a fuller and more detailed picture of illiteracy effects. Sociologists focus more on how humans function in society and how being literate effects that, whereas, scientists focus on how the brain processes language and how being literate can lead to a higher brain function. Their approaches aren’t conflicting, just different. Both are extremely informative and effective. While Scientists do study after study to prove and create new hypotheses, sociologists compare individual effects to population effects.

Citations:

Buchanan, Candace. "The Problem Of Illiteracy." The Problem Of Illiteracy. 2016. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.  

Castro-Caldas, A., A. Reis, and M. Guerreiro. "Neuropsychological Aspects of Illiteracy." Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 7.4 (1997): 327-38. Web.

Costa, M. (1988). Adult literacy/illiteracy in the United States. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC- Clio.

Crum, Maddie. "The U.S. Illiteracy Rate Hasn't Changed In 10 Years." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Sept. 2013. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.

Roman, Sarah Poff. "Illiteracy And Older Adults: Individual And Societal Implications." UEDG Educational Gerontology Educ. Gerontology 30.2 (2004): 79-93. Web.