Maybe it was just my state of mind this week, but in some ways I found the actual process of reading Chartier’s article to be tedious. At the same time, I found many of the article’s ideas and implications about literacy, and the practice of reading to be incredibly fascinating.
The first thing that I found interesting was the use of signatures on documents to be a measure of literacy. Certainly the problem of defining literacy, specifically in a time before there were records for such things, is a difficult one. Also, Chartier admits it is not a perfect measure, like when he writes that there were surely people who knew how to read who could not write. Although it certainly makes sense that people were able to read and not write, it struck me as sort of strange at first. Reading and writing are so connected in modern education, that it seems strange to think of a time when they were not so closely connected.
A similarly interesting point of Chartier’s, was the idea that silent reading was a kind of revolution. To begin with, he mentions that one had to master new skills to accomplish reading to oneself, which I found strange. Again it made sense in an obvious way, but is so integral to modern education, that it seems strange that there was ever a time when silent reading itself was strange! He also talks about the ways that reading privately, made people more individual. Chartier writes about how it changed man’s view of himself, of religion, and of community. That is pretty revolutionary.
I guess my main reaction to this article is surprise. It is pretty amazing how practices that have become so mundane, such as basic literacy, could have reshaped entire societies as recently as a few centuries ago. And yet, at the same time, it is so obvious. I guess for me it’s hard to imagine a time when the experience of reading was understood so differently from how it is today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
After reading Chartier's article on the privatization of reading/writing practices, it occurred to me, as it did you, just how much reading practices have changed over the centuries. I, for one, can't remember learning how to read. I can remember my first grade class stumbling over "see Spot run"-esque sentences and thinking what an effort in redundancy the exercise was. I could already read.
ReplyDeleteMy point in recounting my own experiences is to show just how much our society had changed. Reading and writing are so integral to our society that we are learning the skills at a continually younger age. It brings to mind the cute little girl on the PC commercials - a little four year old who can send emails and make slideshows - not only is she literate, but she is computer literate, our modern addition to the privatization of reading.
Think of how surprised our grandkids will be to learn that we didn't have computers when we were four! In its way, it is Chartier all over again. New technologies (such as home libraries and personal books) means new ways of using them (silent reading).
It seems odd to call such a thing as reading silently a "new skill". I (just like you and many others) was amazed to learn about a time in which something that we do on an everyday basis was at one time, revolutionary. I think also that the individualization that comes along with silent reading has parallels to computer use today. I know that when I'm reading something online or even just checking my emails, it is like doing silent reading. If someone interrupts me while composing something, it gets me off track. The same can be said while reading. If you're in the middle of a really good part of a really good book and someone interrupts you, it kind of ruins the whole thing. So, I see parallels between the new technologies of the 16th thru 19th centuries and our new technologies of the 21st century. Both the book and the computer encourage individuality and individual thinking in that one acquires knowledge and then contemplates what he or she just read on an individual level, rarely communing with others and comparing notes, in a sense.
ReplyDeleteI think the advent of silent reading was probably the most fascinating part of that article as well. It caught me by surprise, but makes a lot of sense. I do remember learning to read. The first time I read it was out loud. That was all I could do for a while. It was a new skill to learn to read in silent. Perhaps if I hadn't have seen my parents do it I never would have thought up the concept. Probably would have eventually given the modern access to written word. Either way, my brain had to work differently. It is still seen as a sign of stupidity (unjustly of course) when somebody moves their lips while reading. I knew silent reading was an advanced technology, I had just never thought about it before.
ReplyDelete