Alexander Smit, Joëlle Swart & Marcel Broersma
This is part 2 of a series of blog articles on the history of low literacy in relation to digital literacy.
The previous part highlighted stigmas and assumptions surrounding low literacy* from a historical perspective. This second section examines what low literacy meant in different historical periods, the extent to which it was a limitation to functioning in society, and the relationship between low literacy and digital low literacy.
Digitalis literatus
What did low literacy traditionally mean, and how has this concept changed over the years? Low literacy is essentially a term used to describe a lack of certain linguistic skills. This brings limitations and barriers. It is an inherently “negative” term that portrays people as limited, disabled, or not good enough. But where did this concept come from? In the Middle Ages, literacy meant understanding ancient culture and Latin; someone who possessed this knowledge was called a literatus (Lyons, 2022). In deze context omvatte laaggeletterdheid dus diegenen die niet in het Latijn konden lezen of schrijven, maar dit betekende niet noodzakelijk dat laaggeletterden niet in staat waren om deel te nemen aan lokale gemeenschappen in hun lokale taal (Goody, 1968; Freire, 1985). Different languages served different purposes and were applied in different situations. Therefore, the level of literacy varied and depended on the specific circumstances and contexts in which languages were used.
We see the same thing today with digital literacy. If someone does not have enough digital skills to handle their banking or tax returns online, we quickly speak of digital low literacy or limited digital skills, possibly resulting in digital exclusion. That same person may be fine using a smartphone with Whatsapp or other software, and in this way manage useful digital matters to participate in digital society (Smit, Swart & Broersma, 2024). However, as soon as the same person is asked to accomplish the same kind of digital activities with another medium (for example, a computer), this often proves problematic in practice. This is in part because “everyday digital literacy” is often linked to a particular type of digital medium that the user has become familiar with (see Part 1 for more on everyday literacy). If that person suddenly has to use an unfamiliar digital medium, that habituation and trust falls away, especially important for disadvantaged people. So could we think of the modern digitalis literatus as those who understand and can apply digital culture and language within different contexts, and thus function in the ever-increasing digital-by-default society? And what about those who do not fit this view, such as the low-literate and digitally illiterate?
Low literacy and the social stigma
The social stigma surrounding low literacy was not always as prevalent as it is today (Barton & Hamilton, 1998). In the early modern period, people in Europe such as masons, stonemasons, farmers and various laborers were mostly low-literate. However, this did not hinder their ability to find work, nor did it hinder their participation in or integration into society. Low literacy was even celebrated, for example, in the Catholic Church’s struggle against secularism and what was considered blasphemy or “evil books” (Lyons, 2015). Low literacy, for example, acted as protection against conflicting ideologies and thus was seen as a way to maintain the existing status quo. Another example of low-literate people who were little affected by their limited language skills were pastoralists. They were praised for their skills and ability to decipher and “read” constellations. Their skills in reading stars distinguished them in that they possessed esoteric knowledge that others did not. Such historical practices are an illustration of what we might call “practically learned low literacy.
As the 20th century progressed, the situation changed and low literacy began to become a stigma; for the first time it was seen as a “problem” (Barton & Hamilton, 1998). The introduction of universal primary education in Western countries brought about a shift in perceptions of illiteracy and low literacy. It was now linked to deficiencies in development and educational achievement. Within historical research, the stigma surrounding low literacy is often linked to modernization (Bloch, 1993). However, this relationship is unsubtle, as Harvey Graff described in 1979. He argued that the emergence of literacy is too intertwined with theories of modernization and development. According to Graff, this is a “myth of literacy”: in Sweden and Scotland, for example, high levels of literacy in the early modern period did not produce significant economic progress. The supposed correlation between literacy and economic progress is thus questionable, according to Graff.
Graff challenged the idea that literacy and education could provide marginalized individuals with new opportunities for upward social mobility, as was and is commonly claimed. Based on his analysis of Ontario in the mid-nineteenth century, Graff argued that structural social inequalities were rooted in social class and ethnicity. The pursuit of literacy would not solve this problem. Simply becoming literate, for example, was not necessarily beneficial to Irish Catholics or black Americans; literacy could not reduce their long-term social or ethnic exclusion. Moreover, Graff doubted that providing basic education inherently led to higher literacy rates. In contrast, according to Graff, the main purpose of education would historically revolve more around socializing and regulating the working class, preparing them for the new work patterns of industrial capitalism (Graff, 1979).
By problematizing and nuancing the arguments about the benefits of literacy, Graff indirectly showed the opposite aspect: the basis on which the social stigma was built that often underpinned – and still does – low literacy and illiteracy. In the nineteenth century, there was an expectation that skilled workers would respect norms and values such as cleanliness, punctuality, obedience and compliance. Illiteracy and low literacy were associated with the opposite: it indicated moral failings, disobedience and disregard for property and social order.
Low literacy in relation to digital low literacy
People who were illiterate or low-literate were considered not to have internalized the fundamental values of their society. Until they achieved these dimensions of integration, they were identified as social outsiders, people who lived on the periphery of literate society (Lyons, 2022). This was a precarious situation that nineteenth-century liberals often perceived as their own responsibility. As a result, illiteracy and low literacy gradually turned into a social issue, a disability, or worse, a “disease” to be cured (Goody, 1968; Lyons, 2022). However, Graff (1979) showed that low-literate and illiterate people were still able to participate in most social processes. As such, low literacy in itself did not make them vulnerable, as they were able to participate in their own way based on their needs and abilities. However, low literacy combined with poverty, mental illness, physical disabilities, etc., meant that these people had far fewer opportunities for a prosperous life. We see the same thing today with people who are both low-literate and digitally illiterate. They too are mostly held responsible for their limited digital skills, and are almost forced to develop them in order to keep up with the digitalization of society. Here another similarity becomes apparent, namely if people cannot keep up digitally this is also increasingly seen as a social issue, a shortcoming, or even a disability. However, even now, studies show that digitally illiterate people are able to participate in digital society, albeit in creative and sometimes cumbersome ways, or with the help of third parties.
For example, in our recent research, we found that many low-literate people creatively use their smartphones to get around their linguistic limitations or participate digitally with the help of third parties. Most were able to develop situated digital skills using very limited language skills, such as using digital media in a more visual way. For example, they taught themselves to take screenshots of Google Maps and send them to others via Whatsapp, showing where the person lives without having to leave address information, or simply using Google Maps to physically navigate instead of reading street signs. Others used Google Lens on their smartphones to buy and sell used items on Marketplace, or translate objects near them into another language (see Smit, Swart & Broersma, 2024). This nuances the dominant notion that literacy is by definition the foundation of digital literacy, and one cannot exist without the other. Could we perhaps also understand the digital low-literate within our current digital society as a modern version of the shepherds of old, or as “practically learned digital literates”?
In the next section, more on literacy as a foundation for digital literacy, stigmas surrounding literacy that are implicitly factored into our current understanding of digital literacy, and more examples of tactics that low-literates use to participate digitally and physically in society.
*We are aware that the term “low literacy” is controversial because it indicates a hierarchical gap between low and high literacy that reproduces societal power differences. We verwijzen daarom naar deze subgroep als mensen met een grotere afstand tot de geletterde samenleving. Voor het leesgemak denken we echter dat het nog steeds nuttig is om de term te gebruiken in een genuanceerde setting, waar laaggeletterdheid niet automatisch gelijk staat aan analfabetisme, verminderde handelingsbekwaamheid of een gemarginaliseerde sociale positie. It includes those who struggle with language skills in participatory practices. In that context, people may well have higher/better skills in other social, cultural, political and/or economic dimensions, and therefore we see them as equals and experts in low literacy. For ease of reading, however, we refer to these people with limited basic skills as low-literate, with all due respect and dignity.
REFERENCES:
Barton, D and Hamilton M (1998) Local Literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London and New York Routledge.
Bloch, M (1993) The uses of schooling and literacy in a Zafimaniry village. Cross-cultural approaches to literacy, 87-109.
Freire, P (1985) The Politics of Education: Culture, Power and Liberation. Donaldo Macedo, Basingstoke UK Macmillan.
Goody, J (1968) Literacy in Traditional Societies. Cambridge UK. Cambridge University Press.
Graff, HJ (1979) The Literacy Myth: Cultural Integration and Social Structure in the Nineteenth Century. London and New York Routledge.
Lyons, M (2022) The war on illiteracy. In The history of illiteracy in the modern world since 1750, Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Street, BV (1993) Cross-Cultural Approaches to Literacy, Cambridge UK. Cambridge University Press.
