The debate is over, the dust has settled, and literacy stands, just barely.
We had a good turnout of about two hundred. Mike and I gave opening statements that pushed our blog positions a bit further. Mike ventured some details of what post-literacy might look like. It is biochemical, he said. We are our synapses. As such, we should be able to take a pill, sort of like The Matrix, to acquire knowledge. I countered with the “extended mind” argument, the view that knowledge is not limited to our brains but also a function of the environment. We opened the debate to the audience and many questions were raised about ethics and the fate of self in a post-literate world. Clearly, we just scratched the surface.
A vote was held by show of hands. I confess I expected this crowd of librarians to vote overwhelmingly in favour of literacy. At first glance, the moderator, a teacher, said that if she were in her classroom she might call it a tie to minimize the destruction of furniture. In this case she ventured a call. She settled with a win for literacy. Whew! Of course it was all good fun, but the issues were real and mattered to everyone. That the outcome was so close in this crowd is cause for reflection.
The debate format forced a polarization of positions and some attenuation is in order. I genuinely believe that literacy is the best tool for dealing with life’s complexities, both in the present and for the foreseeable future. I am genuinely concerned about the devaluing of literacy that seems to go with the overvaluing of new technologies. Still, I recognize the limits of literacy. Last year, I wrote a response to my reading of The Razor’s Edge by Somerset Maughm. I wrote:
The defining moment for me in The Razor’s Edge is not the moment of Larry’s enlightenment, not the shuddering of his head as he awakens, and not the mountain vista as he fathoms the interconnectedness of all things. It was his action just after his enlightenment that stuck with me, the moment when Larry burns his books.
And then:
I think often about books and their role in enlightenment. I think traditional literacy is essential in learning and “scientific” enlightenment. I also feel that “transcendental” enlightenment is post-literate.
Mike might say, “aha”, but I distinguish two types of enlightenment, scientific and mystical. Scientific enlightenment was a cultural movement of intellectuals in 18th century Europe. It sought to use reason, science and technology to advance humanity. It emerges in different forms at different times, usually with the emergence of new technologies. As I stated in the debate, any vision that uses technology, be that digital or biochemical technology, is an extension of literacy. But there is this other kind of enlightenment, the mystical kind. Mike was reluctant to define post-literacy and I brushed it off as conceptual laxity, a fuzzy Age of Aquarius idea. The adjective “fuzzy” got tossed back and forth a lot. It served rhetorical ends but this fuzziness may have been inevitable around this more nebulous, mystical idea. The audience, and their questions about the fate of self, were beginning to tap into this. Clearly, even advocates of literacy want something more. Another debate someday? It would be crazier than this one!
Kudos to Mike who got this whole thing rolling in the first place.