Reflecting back on Kaestle’s article “The History of Literacy and the History of Readers”, I think that it’s interesting to look at the power dynamics that literacy can have on the masses. The governing classes encouraged literacy and education, because they viewed it as a way of reinforcing social control. If they had control over what the masses were consuming then they could continue to govern and shape popular thought and culture. This relationship eschewed the fear that literacy would be a liberating and dangerous thing to encourage, because it would inform the masses and weaponize potential revolt. The printing press made reading materials more widely accessible and therefore the governing class had to recognize that they could not restrict the masses from participating in literacy forever. So, we see the beginnings of literacy and reading as a means of social control.
In relation to Helen Damon Moore’s “Introduction” and “Chapter 1” from Magazines for the Millions, I think this dynamic of literacy as a means of social control is apparent in the way that magazines and similar media reinforce gender roles. The way that we use magazines and these literacy practices as a way of performing and understanding our identities is particularly interesting. We, as readers, are allowing a distant, foreign “tastemaker” or influencer to create media that we consume. While we have agency in the media that we consume, we are still informed by these magazines and examples of what is socially acceptable and what is socially desirable.
I think this idea is very true, especially when you consider that many countries have banned Facebook. Facebook is difficult to outright control and allows people to organize rebellions, share unsanctioned information, and is otherwise not directly controlled by the elite. Look at the Arab Spring, which happened when a bunch of young people were able to find one another and communicate through Facebook.