Throughout history, illiteracy has been a plague to many societies. In recent centuries, due to the trend towards technical-oriented jobs, it has become even more of a problem. As can be expected, many programs and organizations have attempted to reduce the amout of illiteracy in the world. Unfortunately, attempt is the operative word here, as they have accomplished next to nothing. Why have they failed? Did the members not put enough effort into their attempt? The fundamental flaw of these programs lies not in how well they carry out their course of action, but within the course itself.

When dealing with any problem, having a good grasp of it and being able to define it in concrete terms is always the first step. The old metaphor definitely applies here, as definition is the foundation upon which the house of analysis and solution is built. Without it, any further attempt at solving the problem is one taken in vain. To this date, no comprehensive definition of literacy has been given by any world government. Standards of literacy have been set, but they have been set rather precariously, and have been poorly justified.

For example, in the United States, standards of literacy are particularly deceptive. One survey (used to present literacy figures to the United nations) exemplifies the ineptness of literacy standards currently in use. The government would send out forms that actually asked what grade level one has completed. If they were returned with any grade above fifth marked, that person was considered literate. This method showed a good number of the population to be literate (approx. 95%) (Kozol 9). However, it was a flawed effort. Literacy levels vary as greatly as do individual human beings. They are based not only on individual ability, but also on the quality of the program in which the person learns literacy. So, this survey was not valid from the start. However, it was an understandable mistake, considering the number of people having to be dealt with. However, the government then took an absurd step. Without any justification at all, they merely assumed that four-fifths of all thoses people previously marked illiterate had become literate through everyday life, rather than by schooling. This completely destroyed any credibility the survey might have had (Kozol 9).

As the above example shows, one problem with defining literacy occurs when ahving to deal with large amounts of people. Another problem occurs when the changing standards of literacy throughout history are taken into consideration. Literacy as an idea is something which is constantly evolving. At one time, the ability to write one's name was all that was required to be considered literate. However, as society grows more sophisticated, so do the requirements for literacy. In 1886, a jury found that in order for a person to be considered literate, "he should be able to express his ideas in words upon paper with a pen or pencil (Resnick 69)." Today, the standard would be even more complex. Literacy is based mostly on society itself; as that society evolves, so does the definition of literacy.

Of course, there are always racial conflicts within each society, and those must be taken into account, also. A variety of prejudices have caused some peoples to receive different schooling than others, and this, obviously, affects the level of literacy among those peoples. In the past, the differences in the U.S. have been particularly marked. As John Ogbu states in his essay "Literacy and Schooling in Subordinate Cultures", before emancipation, and in many cases even to this day, "black education in both the South and the North has usually been inferior, often separate, and generally based on white perceptions and stereotypes of black status in society and especially in the economy (Ibid 141)." The inconsistencies in schooling among different races present even more variables in the problem.

Many authors before me have tried to deal with these variables and form a solution to this problem of defining literacy. A few have actually presented plausible solutions. However, none which I have come across have been complete in themselves. I believe the quest for finding a definition for literacy was best summarized by David Harman, when he said, "The attempt to define literacy is like a walk to the horizon: as one walks toward it, it continually recedes (Ibid 3)." And so it would seem; each new solution to this problem raises even more questions.

Two of the authors I have read seem to be in agreement on how literacy should be defined. Both David Harman and E.D. Hirsch have chosen to view literacy as something which Hirsch has coined "Cultural Literacy". The basic definition of cultural literacy has already been given earlier in this paper. To put it simply, this theory states that literacy is more than just the ability to read and write; it is also the ability to function within society. Hirsch's argument was rather transparent, but this is forgivable, considering how obvious his assumptions are. Harman may have best summed up the entire argument of cultural literacy and literacy in context when he stated:

Definitions of literacy need to be 'situation specific': as each group has unique attributes that serve to define literacy for members of that group. Since what is appropriate for one group need not be appropriate for another, definitions are not easily transportable from one society to another. For this reason, international comparisons of literacy rates are meaningless, as they compare skills that are labeled with the same term but differ enormously in context (Ibid 5).

It would seem that the correct path to take when defining literacy would be along those lines presented above. After all, Hirsch, Harman, and Scribner's solutions do take into account practically all the variables previously mentioned. However, there is one major flaw with their solutions: they are not practical. It simply is not possible to evaluate each section of every society individually. In fact, it presents yet another problem: how big does a section of society have to be before it constitiutes its own definition of literacy? Therefore, a somewhat less idealized solution that still encompasses the basic concept of cultural literacy is required.

Another argument which is somewhat more down to earth, is that made by Mikhail Bakhtin. In effect, Bakhtin argues that literacy should be defined by the relationships between different social classes (e.g. man/woman, Christian/Jew, white/black, etc.) (Willinsky 207). This solution also creates a bit of a problem because of the sheer number of different ethnic and social classes, but is a significant reduction of the number proposed by the above authors.

In conclusion, I feel that the real definition of literacy lies somewhere between these two arguments. It would seem that the elusive definition would have to involve both social considerations and the interactions of different social groups. Of course, these societies would have to be considered on a large scale, and the social groups would have to be greatly generalized in order to make this method practical. Unfortunately, this is where the dilemma arises; I fear that generalization may defeat the entire purpose of cultural literacy and comparitive literacy. Hopefully, either a method by which literacy can be defined without generaliations, or an entirely new, more acceptible definition will be established in the near future.