Blog on En Los Dos Idiomas

"Literacy is a social phenomenon...it is a system or tool, created by human beings and passed on from one human being to another" (475).

I think this quote directly explains the concept of the entire essay En Los Dos Idiomas written by Marcia Farr. This essay was basically a case study on a group of Mexican American people within the location of Chicago, IL and references back to a few parts in Mexico. The author explains how literacy is being learned and utilized informally and subconsciously within various environments such as the workplace, church, and inside of the home.

I thought it was particularly interesting to see how literacy was being taught from one person (whom could be categorized as non literate) to another person whom could be categorized as illiterate or non literate. It was interesting to see the relationship between hearing the pronunciation of words transcribe into writing and comprehension of the alphabet. I think that this essay is proof that we live in a very socially intellectual society and that sort of expands the concept of education. Education seems to mean the ability to make connections between direct experiences (oral language, social interactions) with the technicality/structure of what is learned in the classroom (grammar, the alphabet, etc. ) Perhaps there is so much emphasis on the latter that the experiential quality becomes subconscious, this is also proven in the essay written by Ong when he says that writing is a technology that has become inherently internalized. I think one thing I realized when reading this essay is that before the Mexican families even began to be interested in education, they had to find a practical use for it in their daily lives. For example, they needed to communicate with other family members through letter writing, which prompted them to start to become more aware of their uses of language and being inspired to expand their capabilities. This could translate within classrooms, I have always believed that students learn best, seem the most engaged when they can take the knowledge that they learn in the classroom and bring it into their own worlds.

Blog on "Writing is a technology..."

"Nevertheless, by contrast with natural, oral speech, writing is completely artificial. There is no way to write "naturally"...To live and understand fully, we need not only proximity but also distance. This writing provides for, thereby accelerating the evolution of consciousness as nothing else before it does"( Ong 23).

I thought this essay was very interesting. I can recall from other classes the general assumption that a culture of people can only be defined as "civilized" only when they have acquired a written language. Although the author of this essay does parallel both the attributes of written and oral communication it does seem that he would be in agreement with that. Writing does create a distance between the "knower" and the "known" and within that space there is perception without borders/constraint and from that position of "openness" human beings have created and acquired so much knowledge and art. However, when Ong talks about using more words to explain definitions of words it seems apparent to me that the human mind can then become so conceptual that it blurs the direct experience of the world with our internal projections of reality;thus creating our own worlds so to speak, "living in our heads". It seems then that writing does become a paradox.

Ong then uses the "tree definition" to illustrate how oral traditions are somewhat limited as well. He says, "What is a tree? Define a tree", the illiterate peasant replies, "Why should I? Everyone knows what a tree is" (Ong 29). He believes that oral speech and though narrativizes experiences/environment. I am in agreement with that. I also think that oral speech provides that space for reflection and personal interpretation. What would happen if we were to look an object and not readily define it with words? In my opinion creativity takes place within that spaciousness and that is what art is inspired by. I also thought it was interesting how he described the mental processes of oral speech as describing and interpretation. He says that an orator can describe something but when asked to repeat it they use words to further articulate their interpretations of what was said instead of using the same wording. I find that within our society of both heavily used, often blended oral and written speech, I possess a sort of dualistic literacy. So then it seems that the most effective speech would be a collective of both written and verbal. With written speech generating proximity, logic, universal knowledge and oral speech being the spaciousness in which we as humans have furthered our creativity and technological advances.