It’s a great idea until you try to pin it down. To participate in any society, you need to share a common knowledge with the other members of that society. But cultural literacy is a slippery concept, and one which is often hijacked by people pushing their own agendas, particularly those of conservative views.
There's evidence the idea – which is distinct from the common literacy of reading and writing – is being groomed for another outing.
Take, for example, the new test that would-be Australians must pass to become citizens. (I wonder how we old Aussies would go if we had to sit the test alongside the newcomers.)
And should we heed those people who say we should be able to name all of Australia's prime ministers? Or those who say students should be required to study Pride and Prejudice?
Just over two years ago there was similar pressure for a national agenda of common knowledge, and I went back to a book I'd stashed away some years before —Cultural Literacy, by E.D. Hirsch Jr. This piece is based on my thoughts at that time.
Through the 1980s, Hirsch, Professor of English at the University of Virginia, developed his theory that literacy is far more than a skill and that it requires large amounts of specific information.
In Cultural Literacy, a US bestseller published in 1987, Hirsch wrote: “It is the background information, stored in their minds, that enables [all competent readers] to take up a newspaper and read it with an adequate level of comprehension, getting the point, grasping the implications, relating what they read to the unstated context which alone gives meaning to what they read.”
So far so good. Even more acceptable are Professor Hirsch’s opening words in the preface: “To be culturally literate is to possess the basic information to thrive in the modern world. The breadth of that information is great, extending over the major domains of human activity from sports to science.”
And further: “Cultural literacy constitutes the only sure avenue of opportunity for disadvantaged children, the only reliable way of combating the social determinism that now condemns them to remain in the same social and educational condition as their parents.
“That children from poor and illiterate homes tend to remain poor and illiterate is an unacceptable failure of our schools, one which has occurred not because our teachers are inept but chiefly because they are compelled to teach a fragmented curriculum based on faulty educational theories.”
The chapters which follow present a well-argued exposition of his theories. Like most readers, I skipped through the heavy stuff to the appendix, to test myself against, “What Literate Americans Know: A preliminary list.” Generally, the list is as wide-ranging as promised, and stumbling around azimuth, Balzac, belles lettres and comme il faut, one feels literate Americans may well be better educated than their Australian peers.
But what’s this? You don’t actually have to have read a book, just recognise its title, to be culturally literate, says Hirsch. As an example he names Das Kapital.
In an Australian context, would that mean you don’t actually have to read Geoffrey Blainey’s histories—just recognise the titles—to be culturally literate? Saves a lot of time if you don’t have to read The Tyranny of Distance before tossing it into dinner table conversation.
Other books you needn’t bother to read would include The Lucky Country and A Fortunate Life. And anyone would understand if you found six volumes of Manning Clark’s prose less than gripping.
Like most Americans and Australians, I recognise Black Hole of Calcutta. But Hirsch’s list does not include Amritsar. And it was not until I saw Richard Attenborough’s 1982 film,
Gandhi, and checked some histories that I learned that in 1919 British troops killed at least 379 Indians and wounded 1200 when they opened fire on a political rally in a Sikh temple (unofficial sources give much higher figures,
as this shows).
So we’re all culturally literate if we vaguely know that in the mid-18th Century some treacherous Indian nawab locked 146 decent Brits and their supporters in a small room, causing many of them to suffocate, but it’s not part of that literacy to know of a far worse massacre by our side in modern times.
Couldn’t find Allende in the list, either. Perhaps in 1987, when Hirsch published his book, there was no need for Americans to know that 14 years earlier, the CIA had participated in a coup by Pinochet and other right-wing generals that deposed the elected socialist President of Chile, leading to Allende’s death and the murder of many thousands of his supporters.
In more recent times, however, that knowledge might have helped Americans understand why most of the world was cool about the otherwise commendable regime change in Iraq.
Cultural literacy is a fine concept, until ideologues start squabbling about what should make the cut. Should we try to develop a list of worthy concepts, and instruct our teachers to put it in the curriculum? What about the dissenters?
We should bear in mind that one of our Prime Minister’s proudest boasts is that his government has abolished political correctness – a boast repeated not long after he had unleashed his supporters to get rid of National Museum director Dawn Casey, apparently because she phrased exhibit captions in a way they disliked.
What's the difference between "abolishing political correctness" and punishing those who dissent?
Another example: Australians have constructed a Gallipoli mythology which encompasses a brave and generous foe in "Johnny Turk", but, as Robert Manne pointed out in The Monthly's February issue, nowhere does that narrative acknowledge Turkey's carrying out the first great genocide of the 20th century, the killing of a million Armenians, at the same time as the Gallipoli campaign. Should knowledge of the Armenian genocide be part of our cultural literacy?
Even for those of us who would agree, tentatively, with Hirsch’s arguments, the potential for ideologues to set a canon must be a worry. Will we end up with a list prescribed by those with the power and the inclination to get rid of those who offer opinions with which they disagree?
And what about the generation gap? I do a little volunteer tutoring at a high school, and one of the stock literacy exercises involves a passage about Anne Frank, her hiding place and her diary. It’s rare to find a student who’s heard of her.
Similarly, I have encountered students who have never heard of the Tent Embassy (well, they weren’t born then), nor of the Australian Constitution, and who are unsure whether the Vietnam War or World War II came first. These are not stupid kids, it’s just they haven't been told.
In a recent post on
my other blog, I referred to the Profumo affair. Then I realised my younger readers wouldn't know what I was talking about (a link to Wikipedia fixed that).
But then, I may buy Australia’s biggest selling newspaper and find the lead stories on the first five pages are about people of whom I've never heard. Who is this Delta? Or Paris? Or Brad – he’s an actor or something, isn’t he?
A young friend of mine used to have fits of giggles when she had to explain who Eric Clapton was.
How then do we stimulate cultural literacy? The answer – and I am sure this reflects what Hirsch was saying – is that it must come from the discourse of people of diverse backgrounds and interests.
That means I cannot claim cultural literacy until I am aware of the leading pop bands, and our youngsters not until they understand what we oldies are talking about.
More seriously, cultural literacy must be illuminated by the sort of education and public debate that leads to questioning, evaluation and creative thinking. It should not be devoid of values – some matters must be more worthwhile than others – but those values must encompass more than the prejudices of a ruling class.
And a final note. To me, the term cultural literacy seems a little precious. Once we just talked of a well-read person, or of someone possessing good general knowledge.
