Bullard 1

Jacob Bullard
Nancy Roche
Writing 1010-013
23 September 2014
Literacy: Facts and Fallacies
Some call it absolute truth, others call it myth. The existence of God is not the subject
being referred to with these intensely black and white stands but the emphasis lies in literacy, its
definition and its effects. James Paul Gee, author of Social Linguistics and Literacies,
dedicates a chapter in his book to the history of and myth behind literacy. Many people tend to
have a dualistic view of literacy in which literacy involves just reading and writing. Some also
believe that literacy leads to a better off society. Better off meaning more power, thriving
economy, cognitive growth, individual status, and civilized. These repercussions of literacy,
along with others deemed worthy by society, Gee refers to as the literacy myth in the chapter.
Gee makes a courageous argument against these outcomes of literacy by stating that because of
the complex nature of literacy and its multi-faceted contexts, these claims people have are myth.
Although Gees argument seems to be geared toward those in the academia setting, there is great
importance in this dispute for any who are open-minded to the revelation of some truth regarding
literacy. This essay will discuss Gees argument by covering his main points which he uses to
back up his claim against the literacy myth.
The first piece Gee uses to support his claim is some of the work of Plato. Platos work
initially claims that the intended meaning of a piece of writing is restricted in a sense that it
cannot answer the reader if a question arises in their mind. A question such as, what do you
mean, cannot be answered by the writing itself. Plato believed that the overall understanding of

Bullard 2
writing boils down to the interpretation by the reader themselves. Plato thought that if every
interpretation of a piece of writing was valid then the writing would have no actual interpretation
or meaning which was valid. Because of this truth, Plato believed that writings should be
restricted to a particular group of individuals which as a group would be responsible for the
meaning of the writings. The group would prevent misinterpretation and corruption of the
interpretations of writings by being authority figures over the different interpretations people had
towards a piece of writing. This last claim of Plato led to authoritarianism. To Gee, all of Platos
work helps to show that the power which people think that comes from literacy doesnt come
from the reading or the writing itself but that the authority which is required over writing for
meaning to exist is where the power comes into play. Without this power over interpretations,
writings can almost be seen as pointless. There are some people that do not like to be told that
their interpretation or understanding of a writing isnt correct. In fact, Gee says that there have
been many rebuttals against Platos authoritarianism and uses a specific example as another
piece backing his main claim.
One example Gee uses to back his belief in the literacy myth is when Sweden nearly
attained a universal literacy. Sweden accomplished this feat by an attempt to expand the
Christian faith throughout the country as well as challenge Platos authoritarianism. The church
suggested that the people should read Gods Holy Word and find out for themselves what it
means to them personally, giving them the opportunity to be their own interpreters. Gee
continues to claim that the church dictated how they wanted the people to view His Holy Word
and therefore because of the, perspective of an authoritative institution that delimits correct
interpretations the individual reader does not need any very deep comprehension skills and
surely doesnt need to write (Gee 54). During this time there was much poverty and

Bullard 3
economically Sweden was behind the rest of the world. Gee uses this information to help show
that although there was a near universal literacy in Sweden which involved an attempt to
challenge Platos authoritarianism through the spread of Christian faith, the claims for a thriving
economy or cognitive growth resulting from literacy are false. Gee concludes with what he
believes actually comes from literacy.
Gee believes that contrary to the literacy myth, nothing comes from literacy. This is a
particularly bold statement from Gee. However, Gee does believe that with the pursuit of literacy
comes, attitudes, values, norms, and beliefs that always accompany literacy (61). These
aspects, Gee believes, are what form the habits of and disburse the power throughout society in
the caste system. These habits are what people essentially tend to believe come from obtaining
literacy. It is through diverse widespread authoritarianism over these many discourses governed
by writings which creates powers and division among the people. Literacy in and of itself is only
a mean of interpretation. Take what you want, and leave the rest.

Bullard 4
Works Cited
Gee, James Paul. Social Linguistics and Literacies. N.p.: n.p, 2012. Print.