Higgins, Long, and Flower: Defining Literacy

Higgins, Long, and Flower believe that "literacy should be defined not merely as the receptive skill of reading, but as the public act of writing and taking social action" (9).  Their definition requires a turn from the idea of "cultural and critical literacies" (9); an idea that I found refreshing after reading Jack Goody and Ian Watt's obnoxious article, "The Consequences of Literacy," this past weekend.

I find that when Higgins, Long, and Flower attempt to include both "personal and public inquiry" in their approach, they are tapping into an interesting gap within literacy studies as a whole--the gap between the public and private spheres; in other words, the gap that is not a gap.  Public and private literacy collide constantly, but researchers tend to privilege one over the other; Higgins, Long, and Flower are attempting to reconcile the privileging tendency within most research--a tendency which extends into the division between local and universal literacy (there is, most likely, an actual term for this, but I have no idea what it is).

Ultimately, their goal is to provide a "rhetorical model" which "would guide the development of new practices of collaboration, argument, and problem solving  across hierarchical and diverse publics" (11).  I do, however, find this to be a very optimistic goal.  When discussing the issue of "assessing the rhetorical situation," they also tackle the issue of recognizing subgroups.  Unfortunately, it is not always easy, or even possible to identify those subgroups.  Higgins, Long, and Flower admit to the fact that this is "the rhetorical situation" as the researcher is able to "perceive" it (12).  This issue of researcher perception reminds me of one of the presentations I saw at the SWCA conference:  In a writing center, there are specific perceptions of ESL students, but the ESL students do not always think of themselves in that way.  So, how do you tutor students who you believe are ESL but who do not think of themselves as ESL?  I feel that the same can be applied to this issue of rhetorical situation.  In other words, how do you interact with a subgroup filled with people who do not consider themselves to be a part of that subgroup?

I certainly enjoyed this particular article.  I found the idea of "supporting personal and public transformation through the circulation of alternative texts and practices" to be a laudable goal.  However, since I am only just beginning to read literacy research, I will continue to view this piece with skepticism until I am more informed.