Upon noticing the Mayflower Compact in the Puritan readings packet, I began thinking about the importance of a written constitution. Obviously, the constitution is a major part of many modern governments. However, only a few centuries ago, constitutions, and even written laws were uncommon. There was no way for the people's rights to be defined and enumerated. Therefore, it would seem to be quite difficult to prove a violation of rights. In fact, I fail to comprehend how civil liberties could exist at all. Did they simply not? Maybe my mind cannot grasp that there was no civil rights without constant revolution because as Dr. Bjornstad always reminds us, we are all in the mindset of the Lockean liberal.
Our discussion of Puritanism has made me think about the importance of literacy. Written laws and constitutions have no importance if they can only be interpreted by the upper echelon of society. As Francis Bacon put it, "Knowledge is power". More specifically, I believe, literacy is power. Without it, standing up to oppression seems impossible.
Some of this may seem obvious, but it led to ponder a hypothetical question; Is is possible to have a successful, progressive society without literacy? I know this would be much more difficult in today's world but I'm including the retrospective. Without widespread literacy can a country develop at any sort of a pace or would the gap between those with knowledge and those without it be too great?
(Molly Dunbar)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think that a society can't really progress in that type of situation. Because of the limitations of the less knowledgeable people, it would be difficult to advance. Depending on the situation of the situation of society, the gap between the those with knowledge and those without knowledge could grow extremely large. If a society grew rapidly, the gap could become too great (depending on your definition of 'too great') Regardless, the people without knowledge would be left in the dust, and therefore make it nearly impossible for a society to completely be progressive and successful.
However, I think that it is possible for a society to succeed even if all the people are illiterate. Even though there is no written law, there is always language to carry such laws. Take Russia for example before the 17th century (not sure of the date, so correct me if I'm wrong). Most of Russia was made of serfs who were illiterate. Now, around 1682, Russia was able to progress with reforms administered by Peter I. I'm aware that most of the serfs didn't benefit from these reforms, but regardless, the society did progress.
So overall, a society can progress and succeed as long as the majority of the society is either literate or illiterate.
(And I believe I just contradicted myself in the same comment....)
Well, I think it depends how one defines "successful" and "progressive". Is it possible to have a society where most of the people are reasonably well-fed, comfortable, and enjoy basic human rights, without literacy? I believe it is possible; after all, many Native American societies existed, for example, for a long time without a written language.
However, if you mean "progressive" as in, for example, advanced technology and science, then no, I don't believe that can be had without literacy. The written word is the fastest way to spread ideas to the greatest number of people. Without reading and writing, scientists, for example (if they even existed in such a hypothetical society), would have a hard time recording their findings.
So, in summary, I don't believe literacy is essential for a reasonably comfortable society, but I believe it is necessary for a progressive one.
-Paige Walker-
Literacy is extremely important to a successful, progressive society. As long as the laws and constitution are written down, literacy allows everyone to read those laws and be aware of their rights. As a matter of fact, ruling classes in some countries used to intentionally deprive others of literacy and keep them unaware. It's no coincidence that it used to be illegal to teach slaves how to read and write.
When an oppressed person is able to read the laws and other works, he becomes aware of his rights and begins to question why he is not accorded those rights as well. Once he becomes aware of his status, dissent and protest are almost inevitable.
Similarly, when a literate society makes its laws available in written form, it is exposing its ideals to everyone's interpretation. That serves to make society stronger. Even today, we read the Constitution and debate over its meaning. But we can only do so because our Founding Fathers put down their ideals in ink and parchment for posterity and because we are literate.
When a society denies literacy to others, it is intellectually cutting them off from the collected "pooling of knowledge" (Hayakawa).
It seems possible for a society to exist without being literate, but I don't really see how it would be possible for a society to progress without ultimately becoming literate. I don't know how many years it took for our society to become literate, but, for the most part, it is now. It wasn't always that way. Look at slaves, for example. Our society has made progress in the last 150 years, and "freedom" of literacy is part of that progress.
But, again, as Paige mentioned, this all depends on the definition of progress...
Emily T.
At the time when the Mayflower Compact was written (1620), I find it safe to say that literacy was viewed differently than it is today, at least by a majority of people. Our values have shifted, we have become dependent upon things which may have seemed completely bizarre to Puritans and other people of the past. In this current society, the illiterate are shunned and looked down upon. Likewise, the Puritans, being as haughty as they were, emphasized literacy because they were an "elect" group of people deserving salvation of the utmost quality. Values have changed, yes; yet literacy remains a tool of separation or union (whichever way you chose to look at it).
Verbal language can only get you so far. When a community is founded upon word of mouth, "recorded" history becomes more myth than history. Bradford realized the significance of literacy and was readily able to account the Puritans' hardships as they sought a haven of sorts. Because of literacy, we are not in the dark about events of the past.
When things, such as laws, are spoken rather than written, they become easily manipulated. Men and women have nothing to rely on but their memory, which we all know is a fallible source. This happens in our everyday lives. If everything were on paper, their would be a major decrease in lies and falsities. Not so bad, huh?
(Sam Maliha)
I agree with Paige and Emily that much of this discussion depends on how one defines "progress."
Definitions aside for a moment (or I guess what I mean is "in terms of MY definitions"), however, I agree with Eric's view that literacy is indeed essential to a successful, "progressive" society. Without this important component of society, the entire network or pool of communication would be strictly limited. Thus, the spread of ideas and interpretations through written contexts greatly increases a society's potential for growth and "progress."
While Mary noted 17th century Russia as an example of a relatively "progressive" illiterate society, Emily suggested that eventually societies "become" literate in order to maximize progress. The question I have, then, is: what happens if a society does NOT "become" literate? Does it simply crumble due to the lack of the "pooling of knowledge"? Perhaps this question involves too much semantics, but I ask it anyway...
(Janet Lee)
Post a Comment