A response to Mona's post

Lankshear and Ong are not necessarily on the same page about what literacy means, and that just proves that there is no one answer for what literacy is. Like Lankshear and Ong, we all will have our own perspective on literacy which may be similar to others and different from others. I agree and disagree with some aspects of what Lankshear and Ong speaks of about literacy. When Lankshear said that literacy cannot be an unitary, neutral, or an independent variable. Literacy cannot be a "thing" or a "skill" because literacy is not neutral. It is very much part of our society. Literacy is among every part of our society whether it is our education, our relationships, our religion, politically, and even during our entertainment. Literacy is not simply reading and writing, nor is it an independent variable. Literacy is much more complex than just that. Ong mentioned something about about "functional" literacy" and "dysfunctional" literacy. As Ong described the two types of literacy, I see there is a lack of functional literacy. There is such dictation over who can or cannot be functional at literacy. So once again, literacy cannot be considered neutral or an independent variable. Literacy is not only used as a door of opportunity to freedom but also to control the population as how they function in the society. Lankshear and Ong focuses on literacy in term of reading and writing, but I also see literacy as a tool, a technology, especially nowadays. It is different from the oral traditions and what Plato has argued about writing. Literacy goes a little bit further now. We need to begin to be more open minded about literacy, as the essentials broadens that links to literacy.