After a couple weeks of listening to lectures in WRD 205, my new definition of literacy is; a way of effectively communicating, whether it’s oral, written, read, etc…it does not matter as long as both parties understand what the other is trying to interpret.
Comparing this to Kastle’s definition, on the surface we have the similar ideas but when you dive deeper and analyze it, we actually have different stances.
The first difference that pops up is when Kastle states, “the ability to decode and comprehend written language at a rudimentary level”(Kastle). I do not necessarily believe that literacy has to be written because as we know other cultures have different values of writing. Some do not have a use or weigh as much importance on writing like western civilizations, which is completely fine. They still have rules and systems in place for whatever form of literacy is predominantly used by them. Kastle’s definition is actually dangerous because that is exactly how the Europeans defined literacy in the 19th century. So when they imperialized Africa, that was part of their justification, because African’s didn’t use a written literacy, they were then thought as primitive, uncivilized and lacked creativity.
Another difference is that Kastle specifically only references to reading, writing, and speaking. While I believe literacy can be any form of communication, for example, using a flashlight for morse code.
But besides those two specific points, both of our ideas are somewhat similar to one another.
