Davies 1

Jenessa Davies
Nancy Roche
Writing 1010-018
23 September 2014
Its Complicated
In The Literacy Myth James Gee explains that this myth is really a common fallacy by
showing how little historical evidence there is to support it. Gee explains the myth, analyzes
history, and references well known philosophers such as Plato, Socrates, and Freire to show that
the relationship is weak between literacy and analytical, critical and rational thinking,
questioning attitudes, political democracy, greater social equity, better citizenship, political
stability, wealth and economic development. The literacy myth is a method that has been used
to gain economic ranks, social class, and authoritative power.
This myth suggests that Countries with high literacy rates are better developed, more
modern, and better behaved. (Gee 47) But, throughout history there has been little evidence to
support the idea that literacy alone is directly associated with personal, social, or economic
success. Countries with high literacy rates aren't necessarily the greatest countries with the best
economies, having the highest moral standards, or the lowest crime rates. What literacy is
believed to do is lead to a greater ability to think and reason. If this is true, the studies on the Vai
people in Africa would show that those who attended school, studied hard, and became literate
would score consistently better on skills and problem solving tests than those who did not. But
this is not the case for all people. The society provided with better education is only offered the
chance of better literacy. This is also true if we look at Universities or other locations with high
literacy rates. These places still have crime and social moral issues even though there are better

Davies 2
educational opportunities. But not only looking at statistics of crime rates prove that the literacy
myth is false, the interpretation of text plays a huge role.
Gee states What writing cannot do is defend itself. It cannot stand up to questioning
(Gee 49). When writing it is the authors responsibility to be able to answer the question what
do you mean?(Gee 49). But only having the text right in front of you, and not the author
themselves to question, people have to make their own interpretations. Plato's solution to this
problem of misinterpretation or misuse was to restrict access to writings to a select group, those
with the appropriate skills and knowledge to interpret Plato's writings "correctly." Platos
perfect state was an authoritarian one based on the view that people are, by and large, born suited
for a particular place in a naturally given hierarchythe philosopher-king knowing their
interests better than they do(Gee 51). This arrogantly implies that only those who are properly
"trained" can hope to understand the author's true meaning. Plato believed the state and its
institutions would ensure correct interpretations. The danger with this is that these institutions
can corrupt the material and rule as they please.
For further explanation of the literacy myth Gees looks to the great author Freire. Freire
believes that Much fallows, however, from what comes with literacy and schooling, what
literacy and schooling come wrapped up in, namely the attitudes, values, norms, and beliefs
(Gee 61).He believes that we learn the best by using and analyzing literacy. But the only way to
master literacy is through experience and practice. If we were to have an authoritarian society,
like Plato would like, then people wouldnt be able to be creative in their own literacy and would
only fallow the path of others. And with self-experience comes knowledge and creative beliefs
on religion, politics, and everything else that surrounds us in this world.

Davies 3
Gee believes that the literacy myth is a way to keep power and to set economic and social
ranks. He believes that if we can break free from this widely believed myth, we can change
social norms. We as a society can have people of independent thought step into power and lead
in a new and better direction.

Davies 4
Work Cited
Gee, James. "The Literacy Myth and the history of literacy." Social Linguistics
and Literacy. 2008 ed. New York: Falmer Press, 1991. 47-62. Print.