The past decade has seen increasing acceptance of the perspective thatthere can be no disinterested, objective, and value-free definition of literacy: Theway literacy is viewed and taught is always and inevitably ideological. Alltheories of literacy and all literacy pedagogies are framed in systems of valuesand beliefs which imply particular views of the social order and use literacy toposition people socially. Even those views which paint literacy as a neutral,objectively definable set of skills are in fact rooted in a particular ideologicalperspective, and it is precisely because they obscure this orientation that they aremost insidious. In fact, as Fairclough (1989) argues, one of the primary mecha-nisms of social control is the "naturalization" of institutional practices whichlegitimize and perpetuate existing power relations. He argues that ideologicalpower emanates from "the power to project one's practices as universal and'common sense"' (1989:33), and that taken-for-granted discourse practices(including literacy practices) are key in this process. Thus, one of the primaryendeavors of recent literacy research has been to uncover and make explicit thesituated and interested nature of various views of literacy, the practices throughwhich they are manifested, and their implications for instruction.
LITERACY THEORY
The work of two literacy theorists, Paulo Freire and Brian Street, hasbeen particularly influential in framing current discussions about the socio-political meanings of literacy. Freire, a Brazilian educator who developed anapproach to literacy education for peasants and slum dwellers in NortheasternBrazil during the early sixties, was a pioneer in proposing that literacy mustalways be seen through ideological lenses. He challenged the notion that literacyinevitably leads to social and economic advancement, arguing that while illiteracyin modern society is clearly disempowering (serving to exclude marginalizedpeople from political and economic participation), the acquisition of literacy is noguarantee of access or power; it is a myth that literacy in itself is empowering.
71
72 ELSA AUERBACH
Rather, literacy can only be understood within the broader framework ofeducation's socializing functions which always either reinforce or challenge thestatus quo, supporting learners' assimilation into the existing system or theirability to participate in its transformation. This ideological stance is implicit ineven the most seemingly mundane practices:
The critical analyst will discover, in the methods and texts usedby educators and students, practical value options that betray aphilosophy of man, well or poorly outlined, coherent or incoher-ent... [T]echnique itself as an instrument of men in their orienta-tion in the world is not neutral (Freire 1985:43).
According to Freire, the very way that knowledge is defined reflects aposition about power and the social order. Questions like "Whose experience isvalid"? "What counts as legitimate knowledge"? and "How is this knowledgetransmitted/constructed"? are central to understanding how power manifests itselfin education. The dominant approach, which Freire (1970) calls the bankingmodel, incorporates a positivist conception of knowledge as a static, objectivecommodity (taking the form of skills, decontextualized sounds, and words andtexts in the case of literacy) which has an existence independent of learners(Walsh 1991). Learning is seen to be a process of breaking this knowledge downinto digestible chunks which teachers feed to students, and learners are seen asempty vessels who passively and uncritically receive "deposits" of informationdeemed valuable by experts. Texts, words, and ideas are donated from the havesto the have-nots in a one-way transfer. The learners' own experiences are seen asseparate from and irrelevant to this legitimated knowledge.
Freire argues that the goal of education should not be to incorporatemarginalized people into the very system which is reponsible for their depen-dency. In place of this domesticating model, he proposes a problem-posingpedagogy whose goal is to enable learners to challenge the conditions causingtheir marginalization. In this model, the lived experiences of learners themselvesare at the center of the educational process so that knowledge is constructedcollaboratively through dialogue and critical reflection. Applied to literacy, thismodel stresses the connection between the word and the world: Literacy ismeaningful to the extent that it enables people to understand better and shape theirworld (Freire and Macedo 1987). Mechanical aspects of learning are alwayslinked to critical thinking and action; the classroom becomes a context in whichlearners analyze their reality for the purpose of participating in its transformation.
Street (1984) reframes the domesticating-liberating distinction in terms ofthe contrast between "autonomous" and "ideological" models of literacy, applyinghis analysis to assumptions and claims implicit in contemporary literacy researchand theory. The autonomous view of literacy, which Street says underlies much
LITERACY AND IDEOLOGY 73
of Western literacy theory and mainstream literacy pedagogy, defines literacy as aunitary and universal set of discrete cognitive or technical skills which exist andcan be learned independently of specific contexts, purposes, or cultural frame-works. Implicit in recent studies which focus on the differential qualities ofspoken and written language is the assumption that the single most importantfeature of literacy is its capacity to express meaning without reference to context.
According to this definition, becoming literate entails learning how toexpress and interpret decontextualized meaning, involving mastery of the sameskills for everyone. Being literate is seen as a kind of personal attribute: One iseither literate or illiterate according to invariable, externally defined, measurablecriteria. Further, according to this formulation, literacy leads to particular cogni-tive, social, and economic consequences both for individuals and societies:Because of the inherent features of literacy, it facilitates logical thought and leadsto the capacity for higher order, decontextualized thinking. In addition, it leadsto a sense of self-worth, personal achievement, and upward mobility for theindividual, and economic advancement on the societal level.
Synthesizing social, economic, and historical studies on practices andconceptions of literacy in a variety of contexts, Street debunks four myths implicitin the autonomous model: 1) that literacy is unitary and universal, 2) that it leadsto higher order cognitive processing, 3) that it leads to economic advancement,and 4) that the model itself is ideologically neutral. Regarding the first, he arguesthat investigations of actual uses of and conceptions about literacy in a range ofcultures and historical periods show that literacy is not a unitary phenomenon;rather, it must be seen as a range of context-specific practices and ways ofinteracting with the social environment. There is growing evidence fromethnographic research that "becoming and being literate are processes that canvary across individuals and groups and are shaped by and given meaning bysociety" (Ferdman 1990:181). Literacy must be seen as a "social constructionrather than merely a cognitive process" (Anderson and Irvine 1991:4). Studies ofliteracy practices in a range of cultures (Heath 1983, Reder 1987, Scollon andScollon 1981, Scribner and Cole 1981, Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines 1988) indicatevariation in types of texts, participant interactions around texts, purposes forusing texts, social meanings/values attached to texts, ways of producing texts, andways of socializing children through interactions with texts. As such, literacy isdynamic rather than static, active rather than passive, a set of variable processesand practices rather than a monolithic set of individual attributes.
Street cites the work of Scribner and Cole (1981) in challenging thesecond myth that literacy in itself leads to logical and decontextualized ways ofthinking. Their study of the Vai in Liberia examined the differential effects ofliteracy and schooling. Since the Vai use three kinds of literacy (English, Arabic,and Vai), only one of which—English literacy—is associated with formalschooling, they were able to separate out the consequences of schooling from the
74 ELSA AUERBACH
consequences of literacy per se. They found that the kinds of literacy andcognitive tasks that people could do depended directly on how they were learned:it was schooling, rather than any inherent features of literacy itself, that led to theabilty to perform particular types of decontextualized tasks, putting into seriousquestion the claim that literacy leads to cognitive development.
The work of Harvey Graff (1979; 1987) is central to debunking the myththat literacy leads to specific economic outcomes. His study of nineteenth centuryCanada showed that, despite the claims of the ruling class, literacy did not openthe doors to occupational advancement, increased income, or upward mobility.While literacy education was offered as a promise of greater access, statisticalanalysis showed that it was race, ethnicity, and class background (rather thanliteracy level) that determined economic status. A brief examination of 1980 U.S.census figures reveals the relevance of this analysis today: The median weeklysalary for white males with only a high school education is higher than that ofblack male college graduates, which, in turn, is higher than that of women of allraces with some graduate school study. As in nineteenth century Canada, race andgender, rather than literacy (as evidenced through educational status), shapeeconomic possibilities.
This brings us to the fourth myth—that the autonomous view is ideologi-cally neutral. According to Street, its claims about literacy's features and conse-quences, taken together, can only be understood as a particular ideologically-loaded formulation which serves to maintain and justify the dominance of those inpower. In fact, one of the thrusts of literacy research has been to show that alldefinitions of literacy themselves are variable and value-laden, changing accord-ing to historical conditions as well as the exigencies of those in power (Luke1988, Resnick and Resnick 1988). Graff contends that, in the case of nineteenthcentury Canada for example, literacy education was very much a "hegemonictool" which drew learners into "unwilled and unselfconscious consent" to theexisting social order through the use of particular kinds of texts and methods(1979:47). The dominant classes saw literacy as a double-edged sword: Illiteracywas dangerous in that it might lead to social upheaval and unrest, but literacy wasalso dangerous in that it might lead to rising expectations and demands for anincreased share of economic resources. The solution was to offer particular andlimited kinds of literacy to socialize learners for specific roles: "With properinstruction, the dangers of unrestrained literacy, or of illiteracy, could beneutralized: in learning to read, children would be taught the rules of the socialorder and correct behavior and the principles of economic advancement" (Graff1979:47). Thus, the promise of economic advancement as a result of literacyserved the function of appeasing the working class while legitimating andreproducing the status quo.
Cook-Gumperz (1986) presents a similar analysis of the U.S. context,attributing changing conceptions of literacy to changes in socio-economic struc-
LITERACY AND IDEOLOGY 75
ture. She argues that with the rise of industrialism in the nineteenth century itbecame necessary to transform a home or rural-based workforce into a factorylabor force. As a result, literacy education became institutionalized throughschooling. Under the guise of democratizing educational opportunity, it became avehicle for instilling the particular attitudes and behaviors—discipline and themorality of self-improvement—required by industrial work. Literacy becamelinked with individual worth, effort, personal achievement, and economicadvancement. This view, in turn, provided a justification for the stratification ofsociety: If literacy education is provided for all, those who don't succeed hadonly themselves (their lack of effort, inadequate achievement, etc.) to blame.Other theorists have extended this analysis to contemporary U.S. society, arguingthat the unequal outcomes of schooling and differential literacy achievementcontinue to serve ideological functions. Anderson and Irvine (1991), for example,claim that the current division of labor requires economic success for some andfailure for others, and within this framework, literacy is a mechanism for theallocation of success or failure. They say that illiteracy can only in part beattributed to problems in the classroom. It must also be seen in light of thestructure of opportunities awaiting learners in the world of work. In other words,there is a function to illiteracy—namely that of satisfying structural needs for astratified workforce. According to Ogbu (1991), it is precisely because certainoppressed groups understand this, and realize that race rather than educationdetermines life chances, that they have come to see literacy as an instrument ofdomination (or, as Stuckey 1991 says, an instrument of violence) and literacyeducation as a false promise.
Within the framework of this analysis, the ideological function of theautonomous model, according to Street and others, serves to maintain and justifythe hegemony of certain class and cultural groups by privileging their literacypractices (and hence promoting their "success"). The form that the autonomousmodel has come to take in the U.S. includes the back-to-basics movement.Framed in terms of the scientization and standardization of instruction, it empha-sizes basic skills and functional literacy on the one hand, and academic or culturalliteracy on the other. The back-to-basics thrust reinforces the status of dominantgroups by denying the variability of literacy practices. At the same time, itelevates one culture-specific set of practices (namely the Western essay-texttradition) to universal status: The diverse socioeconomic, cultural, and linguisticrealities of students are thought to be extraneous to the "scientific" task ofteaching (and of learning) and to the acquisition of "neutral" and "universal"content. The exception to this rule is, of course, if the students are young, white,middle class (and probably male) for it is this cultural capital that is a valuedcommodity in school settings (Walsh 1991:9). Hirsch's (1987) notion of culturalliteracy, by advocating "mastery" of a particular body of knowledge, has asimilar effect:
76 ELSA AUERBACH
...the drive to educate all students about a set of 'facts' in thename of literacy education can be seen by minorities as a thinlyveiled guise for the imposition of a particular type of culturalidentity. This way of pushing one version of knowledge maysimply serve to allow the dominant group to maintain its positionwhile still espousing democratic and meritocratic values(Ferdman 1990: 200-201).
A major thrust of recent research has been to document the actualmechanisms for socializing learners differentially depending on their class andcultural backgrounds. Heath's well-known study of three communities in thePiedmont Carolinas examines the differing ways that each community useslanguage and literacy. She goes on to show that the middle class children areadvantaged by the fact that their out of school "ways with words" are reinforcedand valued at school while those of the working class communities are not.Anyon (1980) analyzes the differential curriculum content in working class,middle class, and elite schools, indicating emphasis on rote learning, problem-solving, and critical thinking respectively for the three groups. Luke (1988) andShannon (1989) examine the role of textbooks and reading instruction in convey-ing particular ideological messages and creating the effect that "during readinginstruction, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" (Shannon 1989:109).Shannon argues that the centralization of instruction around basals serves as amechanism of social control by limiting content to one set of materials, andprocesses to prescribed questions and answers, so that "students learn that readingmeans not to question the authority of the teacher or the text" (Shannon 1989:111).
Literacy theorists have argued, however, that it is too simplistic to saythat literacy education is merely a unilateral process of reproducing the existingclass structure and imposing the dominant ideological framework (Giroux 1983,Luke 1988). This analysis fails to take into account how the process is mediatedby the actions and interactions of teachers and students in the classroom, howconsciousness is formed through negotiation and struggle. Giroux claims thatwhenever the educational agenda is shaped by the dominant classes and the goalis to reproduce oppressive social relationships, there is resistance; as such,classrooms become sites of struggle about whose knowledge, experiences, dis-course, and literacy practices count. On the one hand, resistance may take theform of overt rejection of teacher authority, refusal to learn in prescribed ways,or dropping out (McDermott 1985, Ogbu 1991). On the other hand, it may takethe form of a conscious pedagogical stance of resistance to traditional/banking/autonomous definitions of literacy.
Distinct and competing literacies [have evolved] as dimensions ofstruggle between competing interest groups...and must be seen aspart of a broader struggle for power.... Against [hegemonic
LITERACY AND IDEOLOGY 77
forms of literacy,] counter forms of literacy [are being] devel-oped...as a means to challenging existing inequalities of power,privilege and opportunity (Lankshear and Lawler 1987:79).
It is to these "counter forms" that I now turn.
LITERACY PRACTICE
There are four distinct pedagogical tendencies informed by the ideologicalanalysis outlined here, each emphasizing different aspects of the analysis. Thefirst of these, which is perhaps becoming the prevailing view among literacyresearchers, derives from the notion of variability and context-specificity inliteracy practices. Central to this tendency is the claim that ethnographic methodsused to document the contextual nature of literacy must be incorporated intoliteracy pedagogy itself. On the one hand, the findings of ethnographic researchmust become the basis for curriculum development; on the other, learners mustbe taught to become researchers of their own contexts and literacy uses, makingliteracy both the object and the instrument of study. Applied to culture-specificliteracy practices, the result has been, in some cases, to identify particularcultural discourse patterns in which literacy is embedded and incorporate theminto school literacy instruction (e.g., Au and Jordan 1981). In other cases, theattempt to find culture-specific literacy practices has led instead to uncoveringthemes and issues in community life (e.g., concerns about education and cultureloss) which have led to the development of content-based curricula centering onthese themes and issues (e.g., Diaz, Moll and Mehan 1986). In terms ofcontext-specific literacy practices, ethnographic research investigating literacyuses in particular community sites (banks/health centers) or workplaces hasbecome the basis for curriculum development. For example, the current vogue inworkplace literacy is the literacy audit or inventory which describes in detail allthe literacy tasks, purposes, and forms for a specific job in order to teach peoplehow to do those jobs more efficiently. Thus, while the view of literacy as variableand context-specific arose in response to conceptions of literacy as a monolithicset of skills, it has, in some cases, given rise to a new prescriptivism which usesdescriptions of existing practices to train learners to fit into the structures of theworkplace. Likewise, teaching learners to become ethnographers (e.g., Heath1983) has been criticized to the extent that it is seen as a more efficient way tomove them toward mainstream literacy practices, without challenging the systemthat uses these practices to maintain inequalities. Stuckey argues that Heath'sfocus on bridging minority and mainstream practices promotes the myth that, "ifwe teach students to communicate in mainstream ways, then society will becomemore equal and just" (1991:39).
A second pedagogical tendency emphasizes the notion of literacy acquisi-tion as a learner-centered process, developed primarily in opposition to teacher/text-centered and mechanical pedagogy. This approach centers on the notions of
78 ELSA AUERBACH
self-expression, self-direction, and process in literacy pedagogy. In one form, thistendency aims to link literacy acquisition with the experiences, histories, and"cultural capital" that students bring to school so that their voices are confirmedand validated (Giroux 1987). The whole-language and process-writingapproaches may be associated with this tendency in that that they emphasizeliteracy as the construction of meaning rather than as the mechanical acquisitionof skills. Giroux (1987) argues, however, that it is not enough to validatestudents' histories and language; these histories and language must also beconsidered critically in relation to the experiences of others, and to the conditionsthat gave rise to them, so that students can expand their repertoire of culturalunderstandings and possibilities.
In another form, the focus of this pedagogical tendency is to involvelearners in deciding what they want or need to use literacy for, and then teachingin accordance with these goals (e.g., Nunan 1988; Street himself advocates this asa logical outcome of an ideological view [1985]). In this case, the processes oflearner participation are seen as empowering in themselves and specific content issecondary. Mead (1991), however, argues that the ideology of individualismwhich underlies the emphasis on self-determination ultimately works to disem-power learners: Because of the limits of their experience, learners may not knowthe choices available to them or see beyond immediate functional goals. Thefocus on personal learning objectives may undermine the possibilities for collec-tive action and obscure the limitations on their power as isolated individuals toshape their environment, thus leading again to self-blame.
A third tendency deriving from an ideological perspective is one whichfocuses primarily on the politicization of content in literacy instruction, stressingin some cases that it must be explicitly tied to an agenda of social transformation,and in others that literacy itself will become the vehicle for liberation. The formerview arose as an early interpretation of Freire in contexts of rapid social change(for example, at various points during literacy campaigns in third world countries;e.g. Miller 1985). In these situations, materials which explicitly supportedliberation movements or perspectives replaced those serving the interests of thedominant classes. As practice developed, however, this formulation came to beseen by many as too simplistic and dogmatic, containing the seed of a newdanger, namely that of reproducing relations of authority and dominance betweenteacher and student by substituting one body of received knowledge for another.An exclusive focus on targeted political content was seen to undermine thepossibility for critical reflection and dialogue, processes which are central toFreire's problem-posing pedagogy. In other cases, socially conscious educatorshave come to see literacy as a panacea for all the inequities of society. Accord-ing to James (1990), this view, pervasive among programs for minority andworking class learners, is based on an idealistic and mystified view of literacywhich can only lead to disillusionment when learners discover that literacy alone
LITERACY AND IDEOLOGY 79
doesn't open new social and political possibilities. Just as literacy in itself doesnot lead to economic success, it cannot be the sole agent of social change.
Thus, each of these three tendencies, framed in terms of an ideologicalanalysis, can themselves be said in some way to reinvent the very dynamicswhich they critique about the banking or autonomous views of literacy. Thefocus on context-specificity has the potential to become a pretext for a newfunctionalism which teaches existing practices more efficiently; the focus onprocess and self-directed learning falls short of considering individual learners'experiences in light of broader relations of power and dominance, thus promotingindividualism at the expense of social change; the focus on politicized content atthe expense of process may reproduce a transmission pedagogy in new form, or,alternatively, foster a new kind of idealism which leads to disillusionment. Assuch, each may obscure the relationship between the dynamics of power insidethe classroom with those outside the classroom and unwittingly assimilate partici-pants into existing structures.
The fourth pedagogical tendency aims to integrate the voices and experi-ences of learners with critical social analysis: It focuses on transforming both thecontent and the processes of literacy education in order to challenge inequities inthe broader society. In terms of content, this means centering instruction on thelived reality of learners as it relates to the broader social context (so that issues ofpower and inequality become the subject matter itself). In terms of processes, itmeans problematizing reality as the basis for dialogue, critical analysis, thecollaborative construction of knowledge, and action outside the classroom. Thepast decade has seen a proliferation of practice informed by this perspective in theareas of elementary and secondary education (e.g., Ada 1991, Peterson 1991),adult literacy (e.g., ACBE 1988, Arrastia 1991, Auerbach 1992, Auerbach andWallerstein 1987, Barndt n.d., Wallerstein 1983), higher education (e.g., Fioreand Elsasser 1987), literacy assessment (e.g., Lytle, Marmor and Penner 1986),biliteracy (Cummins 1986, Rivera 1988), and women's literacy (Horsman 1988,Ramdas 1990, Rockhill 1988). While the body of literature documenting thispractice is too vast to cite here, edited volumes by Shor (1987) and Walsh (1991)contain exemplary articles describing this practice and the rationale underlying it.
LITERACY RESEARCH
A final perspective on this discussion of literacy and ideology comes fromthose who argue that we must apply the same standards of ideological scrutiny toliteracy research that we apply to theory and practice; that is, research methodsand paradigms themselves imply a stance toward those being researched and theirplace in the social order. As Lytle says, we need to
...make problematic not only our notions of what counts asdevelopment but also our methods of inquiry—the processes we
80 ELSA AUERBACH
use to compose, elaborate and critique our own conceptualframeworks. [This] requires rethinking, and perhaps radicallyrestructuring the power and social relations too often taken-for-granted in adult literacy research... (in press:28-29).
Stuckey (1991) critiques many of the researchers cited earlier whosework challenges the autonomous model, arguing that they may unwittinglysupport hegemonic justifications of literacy as the ultimate mediator or arbitor ofsocial problems. Further, she critiques ethnographers for imposing arbitrary andethnocentric analyses on data while claiming to describe literacy practices objec-tively. Others call for a critical re-examination of the relationship betweenresearcher and researched, leading toward a new paradigm in which teachers andlearners participate in the process of research itself. Anderson and Irvine (1991)advocate a practitioner-centered, problem-posing approach to ethnography whichsees research as a form of social action. Lytle (in press) argues that traditionaladult literacy research has often reinforced learners' sense of powerlessness andcalls instead for involving learners in the processes of investigation themselves.Thus, action research, geared toward not just studying but acting on therelationship between literacy and social context, either through teacher-research(involving teachers in the investigation of their own practice), or throughparticipatory research (involving learners in research of their social contexts), hasemerged as a new paradigm in critical literacy research.
In conclusion, what emerges as the key question in examining literacytheories, practices, and research is not whether they recognize variable andcontextual aspects of literacy, but rather whether they consider how this diversitypositions learners, teachers, and researchers with respect to the existing inequitiesand relations of domination and subordination. Thus, as the field develops it maybe more productive to look at conceptualizations and practice not in terms ofwhether or not they are explicitly ideological, but in terms of the particular natureof the ideologies they imply, further differentiating Street's ideological view intoassimilative and critical perspectives.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Association for Community-Based Education [ACBE]. 1988. Literacy forempowerment: A resource handbook for community-based educators.Washington, DC: Association for Community-based Education.
This is a practical guide for developing context-specific literacy curriculawith a social change perspective. The handbook includes numerous
LTTERACY AND IDEOLOGY 81
examples of activities, materials, and processes, but it is somewhatmechanistic in its "how-to" orientation.
Canadian Woman Studies. 1988. Women and literacy. York University. 9.3/4.
This volume, written from grassroots perspectives, offers a rich tapestryof articles written by and about women, dealing with issues of sexism inliteracy education. The monograph includes student writings, reviews,program descriptions, and case studies.
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power. London: Longman.
While this text does not deal with literacy exclusively, the critical analy-sis of ideological bases with respect to taken-for-granted discoursepractices is a model which is relevant and applicable to literacy practices.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury.
In this book, Freire points out the ideological nature of all education,exploring the implications of traditional banking or transmission peda-gogy and proposing an alternative problem-posing approach. Laying thebasis for his future work, he analyzes relationships between teacher,learner, and knowledge in terms of power dynamics.
Freire, P. 1985. The politics of education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin andGarvey.
This volume reprints several important articles addressing processes ofimplementation of Freire's vision.
Graff, H. J. 1987. The labyrinths of literacy: Reflections on literacy past andpresent. London: The Falmer Press.
The volume is a collection of essays which reflect the development ofGraffs thinking on the ideological underpinnings of literacy in varioushistorical and social contexts, particularly through the development of in-dustrialism in nineteenth and twentieth century North America.
James, H. D. 1990. Demystifying literacy: Reading, writing and the struggle forliberation. Convergence. 23.1.14-25.
James presents a powerful critique of the perspective that literacy can bea panacea for social inequities. As a grassroots educational activist,James explores what literacy can and can't do, arguing that, contrary to
82 ELSA AUERBACH
the hopes of some progressives, literacy cannot change oppressive condi-tions by itself.
Luke, A. 1988. Literacy textbooks and ideology. London: Falmer Press.
Luke looks at current approaches to teaching reading and writing, in-cluding the back-to-basics movement, in light of a historical critique ofthe post-World War II curricula. In his survey, he examines basalreaders from Dick and Jane to more recent texts.
Lytle, S. In press. Living literacy: Rethinking development in adulthood.Linguistics and Education.
Lytle argues for new conceptual frameworks in the study of adult literacywhich take into account learners' own conceptions, practices, and plans,as well as reformulating relationships between learners, teachers, andresearchers.
RaPAL. 1990. New views of literacy 1990: A bibliography. Lancaster: RaPAL[The Research and Practice in Adult Literacy Group].
This annotated bibliography of recent publications in adult literacyincludes a wealth of British grassroots perspectives.
Shannon, P. 1989. Broken promises: Reading instruction in 20th-century America.New York: Bergin and Garvey.
Shannon examines the influence of science, business, and capitalistinitiative in transforming reading instruction (as manifested throughstandardization and commercialization) into a dehumanizing and disem-powering process. Shannon particularly looks at how basal reader-centered instruction functions as a means of social control.
Stuckey, E. 1991. The violence of literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook,Heinemann.
This volume is a scathing critique of many of the prevailing literacyresearchers and research paradigms. Stuckey argues that current researchmethodology and content often serve to uphold literacy's role as themediator of privilege in a stratified society.
LITERACY AND IDEOLOGY 83
Walsh, C. (ed.) 1991. Literacy as praxis: Culture, language and pedagogy.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
This collection of articles explores theoretical foundations, rationales, andpractices in liberating literacy education. The volume provides numerousconcrete examples of critical literacy programs in a range of contexts.
UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ada, A. F. 1991. Creative reading: A relevant methodology for language mi-nority children. In C. Walsh (ed.) Literacy as praxis: Culture, languageand pedagogy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 89-102.
Anderson, G. and P. Irvine. 1991. Informing critical literacy with ethnography.In P. McLaren and C. Lankshear (eds.) Critical literacy: Radical andpost-modern perspectives. Albany, NY: State University of New YorkPress. 78-99.
Anyon, J. 1980. Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal ofEducation. 162.1.67-92.
Arrastia, M. 1991. Community literature in the multi-cultural classroom: TheMother's Reading Program. In C. Walsh (ed.) Literacy as praxis: Cul-ture, language and pedagogy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 133-155.
Au, K. and C. Jordan. 1981. Teaching reading to Hawaiian children: Finding aculturally appropriate solution. In H. Trueba, G. Guthrie and K. Au(eds.) Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom eth-nography. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 139-152.
Auerbach, E. 1992. Making meaning, making change: Participatory curriculumdevelopment for adult ESL/literacy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Center forApplied Linguistics and Prentice Hall.
and N. Wallerstein. 1987. ESLfor action: Problem-posing at work.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barndt, D. n.d. Just getting there: Creating visual tools for collective analysis inFreirean education programmes. Toronto: Participatory Research Group.
Benesch, S. (ed.) 1991. ESL in America: Myths and possibilities. Portsmouth,NH: Boynton/Cook, Heinemann.
Cook-Gumperz, J. 1986. Literacy and schooling: An unchanging equation? In J.Cook-Gumperz (ed.) The social construction of literacy. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press. 16-44.
Cummins, J. 1986. Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention.Harvard Educational Review. 56.1.18-36.
Diaz, S., L. Moll and H. Mehan. 1986. Socio-cultural resources in instruction: Acontext-specific approach. In Beyond language: Social and culturalfactors in schooling language minority children. Los Angeles: California
84 ELSA AUERBACH
State University. 187-230. [Bilingual Education Office, California StateDepartment of Education.]
Ferdman, B. 1990. Literacy and cultural identity. Harvard Educational Review.60.2.181-204.
Fiore, K. and N. Elsasser. 1987. Strangers no more: A liberatory literacy cur-riculum. In I. Shor (ed.) Freirefor the classroom: A sourcebook forliberatory teaching. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, Heinemann.87-103.
Friere, P. and D. Macedo. 1987. Literacy: Reading the word and the world.South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey Press.
Giroux, H. 1983. Theory and resistance in education. South Hadley, MA: Berginand Garvey Press.
1987. Critical literacy and student experience: Donald Graves' ap-proach to literacy. Language Arts. 64.175-181.
Graff, H. J. 1979. The literacy myth: Literacy and social structure in thenineteenth century city. New York: Academic Press.
Heath, S. B. 1983. Ways with words. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Hirsch, E. D. 1987. Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know.Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Horsman, J. 1988. Something in my mind besides the everyday: Il/Literacy in thecontext of women's lives in Nova Scotia. Toronto: University of Toronto.Ed. Phil. diss.
Kazemek, F. E. 1988. Necessary changes: Professional involvement in adultliteracy programs. Harvard Educational Review. 58.4.464-487.
Kirkwood, G. and C. Kirkwood. 1989. Living adult education: Freire in Scot-land. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Lankshear, C. with M. Lawler. 1987. Literacy schooling and revolution. NewYork: The Falmer Press.
McDermott, R. P. 1985. Achieving school failure: An anthropological approachto illiteracy and social stratification. In H. Singer and R. Ruddell (eds.)Theoretical models and processes of reading. 3rd ed. Newark, DE:International Reading Association. 558-594.
Mead, M. 1991. Adult education: Self-determination or self-delusion? Connec-tions: A Journal of Adult Literacy. 4.44-46.
Miller, V. 1985. Between struggle and hope: The Nicaraguan literacy campaign.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Nunan, D. 1988. The learner-centered curriculum. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Ogbu, J. 1991. Cultural diversity and school experience. In C. Walsh (ed.)Literacy as praxis: Culture, language and pedagogy. Norwood, NJ:Ablex. 25-50.
Peterson, R. 1991. Teaching how to read the world and change it: Criticalpedagogy in the intermediate grades. In C. Walsh (ed.) Literacy aspraxis: Culture, language and pedagogy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 156-182.
LITERACY AND IDEOLOGY 85
Ramdas, L. 1990. Women and literacy: A quest for justice. Convergence.23.1.27-41.
Reder, S. 1987. Comparative aspects of functional literacy development: Threeethnic American communities. In D. Wagner (ed.) The future of literacyin a changing world. New York: Pergamon. 250-270.
Resnick, D. and L. Resnick. 1988. The nature of literacy: A historical explora-tion. In E. Kintgen, B. Kroll and M. Rose (eds.) Perspectives on literacy.Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 190-202.
Rivera, K. 1988. Not "either/or" but "and": Literacy for non-English speakers.Focus on Basics. 1.3/4.1-3.
Rockhill, K. 1988. e-MAN-ci-patory literacy. A review of Literacy: Reading theword and the world by Freire and Macedo. Canadian Woman Studies.9.3/4.113-115.
Scollon, R. and S. B. K. Scollon. 1981. Narrative, literacy and face in inter-ethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Scribner, S. and M. Cole. 1981. The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Shor, I. (ed.) 1987. Freire for the classroom: A sourcebook for liberatoryteaching. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, Heinemann.
Street, B. 1984. Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.
1985. Literacy—'autonomous' vs. 'ideological' model. Viewpoints.4.10-16. [Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit.]
Taylor, D. and C. Dorsey-Gaines. 1988. Growing up literate: Learning frominner-city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wallerstein, N. 1983. Language and culture in conflict. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
