The Means of Production: Literacy and Stratification at the Twenty-First Century

Santosh Khadka

The Means of Production: Literacy and Stratification at the Twenty-First Century
-Deborah Brandt

As Brandt mentions, she “explore[s] the issues of access, proficiency and reward of literacy learning” in relation to larger historical and socio-economic conditions in this particular chapter. To that end, she begins the chapter with the general observation that there is a correlation between socio-economic status of individuals and their literacy achievements by which she means to say that literacy and material/political privilege are very closely connected. She then argues that individuals from relatively well-off families have access to resources/means to gain literacy more easily and quickly compared to many other less fortunate folks. Thus, the inequitable distribution of resources/means of production and power across people, families, regions and nations, she implies, is the reason why different individuals gain different types and degrees of literacy/ies which, in turn, help/s to maintain the status quo of social, economic and literacy inequities.

Interestingly, Brandt discusses literacy in this chapter in very materialistic terms. She regards literacy in post-capitalist and information age as labor power, an input, output, a tool, an instrument and means of production, a raw material as well as energy supply of the Information Age. By doing so, she however undermines the fact that there are at least few people in the world who think that literacy is its end.

Brandt backs up her view that class stratification and literacy are closely connected as are resources of an individual’s literacy achievement and nation’s economic system with the findings from two case studies. Her first case study recounts the digital literacy narrative of a male, white American guy named Raymond Branch who hails from a relatively well-off family while the second one presents the Spanish language learning experience of a female, Mexican American lady, Dora Lopez from economically not so-sound family. Through these studies, she shows that because of their differential socio-economic/material conditions, their access to and achievement of types and degrees of literacy varied making a great difference in what they could or not achieve in job market. Raymond had access to computer technology resources at an elite school and its rich surrounding by virtue of his father being a professor. He reaped the full advantage of those available resources and developed expertise in computer programming which he could easily cash in the market. But Dora could not be in the same position because her father was migrant worker and her socio-economic situation did not let her get into a better school and gain a saleable literacy skill. With Raymond and Dora’s literacy narratives, Brandt maintains that inequitable distribution of resources across individuals, families and regions is the root cause of literacy differentials between/among them which, in turn, is responsible for continuing the existing racial, class and sexual and regional disparities /differences.

I agree with Brandt’s argument but with few reservations. Firstly, I have reservation with her methodology which is the kind of reservation people usually have with qualitative research methods. It occurs to me that just two samples/cases might not be enough to make so many generalizations about the relationship between material forces at work and literacy achievement. Granted, the argument and interpretive leaps could be made based on those cases but the question arises whether or not the cases are representative or reflective of the complexity of the issue at hand. For instance, in Dora’s case, it might not be the material forces but flaw in her individual preference/choice of Spanish language literacy over many others which could sell in the market like Branch’s computer programming that she did not succeed economically. As such nowhere does Dora say with Brandt that she regrets her choice or she thinks that she failed.

Secondly, Brandt’s take that Branch’s access to material resources made possible by his father’s education and employment is the sole cause of his success as a computer programmer/professional could also be mistaken in that it discounts Branch’s individual motivation/interest, his diligence and labor or, in short, his agency. Similarly, Brandt’s accusation on Lopez’s socio-economic status as solely responsible factor for her relatively less success as economical agent or instrument could also be flawed. This line of argument again shuts the possibility of an individual transcending or overcoming the economic barriers/hurdles.

But I agree with what she states in the later part of the essay that “access to computers and control over them is unequally distributed in the same ways that traditional literacy has been unequally distributed: by income, race, region and occupation”. While I agree with geo-political disparity in access to technology, I still can’t deny the possibility of an individual crossing the so-called digital divide. Similarly, I challenge the idea that access alone guarantees the success. It could well be the case that many with access do not master the machine while many without access manage to get and gain mastery. This is the case with countries like India which despite its late/difficult access to information technology has already managed to be one of the leading countries in that sector.