Knowledge of the connection between languages-taking the
appearance of entities with lives of their own-and people
constituting them-with the appearance of having unlimited
control over their language-is essential for understanding the
shift from a literacy-dominated civilization to one of multiple
means of expression and communication. These means could be
called languages if an appropriate definition of such languages
(and the literacies associated with them) could be provided. In
light of what has been already mentioned, the broader context of
the changes in the status of literacy is the pragmatic framework
of our existence. It is not only that the use of language has
diminished or its quality decreased. Rather, it is the
acknowledgment of a very complex reality, of a biologically and
culturally modified human being facing apparent choices
difficult, if not impossible, to harmonize. Life is faster paced,
not because biological rhythms abruptly changed, but because a
new pragmatic framework, of higher efficiency, came about.
Human interaction extends in our days beyond the immediate
circle of acquaintances, or what used to be the family circle.
This interaction is, however, more superficial and more mediated
by other people and by various devices. The universe of
existence seems to open as wide as the space we can
explore-practically the whole planet, as well as the heavens. At
the same time, the pressure of the narrower reality, of
exceedingly specialized work, through whose product individual
and social identification, as well as valuation take place, is
stronger than ever before. On a different level, the individual
realizes that the traditional mapping from one to few (family,
friends, community) changes drastically. In a context of
globality, the mapping extends to the infinity of those
partaking in it.
Characteristic of the context of change in the status and
function (communication, in particular) of literacy are
fragmentation of everything we do or encounter and the need to
coordinate. We become aware of the increased number and variety
of stimuli and realize that previous explanations of their origin
and possible impact are not satisfactory. Decentralization of
many, if not all, aspects of existence, paralleled by strong
integrative forces at work, is also characteristic of the
dynamics of change. It is not communication alone, as some
believe, that shapes society. More encompassing effective
forces, relatively independent of words, images, sounds,
textures, and odors continuously directed at society's members,
from every direction and with every imaginable purpose, define
social dynamics. They define goals and means of communication as
well.
The gap between the performance of communication technology and
the effectiveness of communication is symptomatic of the
contradictory condition of contemporary humans. It often seems
that messages have lives of their own and that the more
communication there is, the less it reaches its address. Less
than two percent of all the information thrown into mass media
communication reaches its audience. At this level of efficiency,
no car would ever move, no plane could take off, babies could
not even roll over in their cribs! The dependency of
communication on literacy proved to be communication's strength.
It delivered a potential audience. But it proved to be its
weakness, too. The assumption that among literate people,
communication not only takes place, but, based on the implied
shared background, is always successful, was found to be wrong
time and again. Experiences such as wars, conflicts among
nations, communities, professional groups (academia, a highly
literate social group, is infamous in this respect), families
and generations continuously remind us that this assumption is a
fallacy. Still we misinterpret these experiences. Case in point:
the anxiety of the business community over the lack of
communication skills in the young people it employs. That the
most literate segment of business is rationalized away in the
massive re-engineering of companies goes unnoticed.
We want to believe that business is concerned with fundamental
values when its representatives discuss the difficulties
mid-level executives have in articulating goals and plans for
achieving them in speech or writing. The new structural forms
emerging in today's economy show that business-people, as much
as politicians and many other people troubled by the current
state of literacy today, speak out of both sides of their
mouths. They would like to have it both ways: more efficiency,
which does not require or stimulate a need for literacy since
literacy is not adapted to the new socio-economic dynamics, and
the benefits of literacy, without having to pay for them. The
reality is that they are all concerned with economic cycles,
productivity, efficiency, and profit in trying to figure out
what a global economy requires from them. Re-engineering, which
companies also called restructuring or downsizing, translates
into efficiency expectations within an extremely competitive
global economy. By all accounts, restructuring cut the literacy
overhead of business. It replaced literate practical experiences
of management and productive work with automated procedures for
data processing and with computer-aided manufacturing. The
process is far from over. It has just reached the usually placid
working world of Japan, and it might motivate Europe's effort to
regain competitiveness, despite all the social contracts in place
that embody expectations of a past that will never return. In
fact, all boils down to the recognition of a new status of
language: that of becoming, to a greater extent than in its
literate embodiment, a business tool, a means of production, a
technology. The freeing of language from literacy, and the
subsequent loss in quality, is only part of a broader process.
The people opposing it should be aware that the civilization of
illiteracy is also the expression of practical criticism in
respect to a past pragmatic framework far from being as perfect
as literacy advocates lead us to believe.
The pragmatics of literacy established a frame of reference in
respect to ownership, trade, national identity, and political
power. Distribution of ownership might not be new, but its
motivations are no longer rooted in inheritance, rather in
creativity and a selfish sense of business allegiance. One much
circulated observation sums it up: If you think that the
thousands of not yet fully vested Microsoft programmers will
miss their chance to join the club of millionaires to which their
colleagues belong, think again! It is not for the sake of the
owner of a business, or of a legendary entrepreneur, and
certainly not for the sake of idealism. It is for their own sake
that more and more young and less young people use their chance
in this hierarchy-free, or freer, environment in which they
constitute their identity. What motivates them are arguments of
competitiveness, not national identity, political philosophy, or
family pride. All these and many other structural aspects
resulting from the acquired freedom from structural
characteristics of a pragmatic context defined by literacy do not
automatically make society better or fairer. But a distribution
of wealth and power, and a redefinition of the goals and methods
through which democracy is practiced is taking place.
We know, too, that the coercion of writing was applied to what
today we call minorities. Since writing is less natural than
speaking and bears values specific to a culture, it has
alienated individuality. Literacy implies the integration of
minorities by appropriating their activity and culture,
sometimes replacing their own with the dominant literacy in
total disregard of their heritage. "If writing did not suffice to
consolidate knowledge," observed Claude Lévi-Strauss, "it was
perhaps indispensable in affirming domination. [...] the fight
against illiteracy is thus identical with the reinforcement of
the control of the citizen by authority." I shall not go so far
as to state that the current attempt to celebrate multiplicity
and to recognize contradiction brought about by irreducible
differences among races, cultures, and practical experiences is
not the result of literate necessities. But without a doubt,
developments peculiar to the civilization of illiteracy, as this
becomes the background for heterogeneous human experiences and
conflicting value systems, brought multiplicity to the forefront.
And, what is more important, illiteracy builds upon the
potential of this multiplicity.