The concept of cultural literacy is a subject of ongoing debate, particularly regarding what can be considered as shared knowledge in today’s society. Critics question whether there is still a cohesive Western tradition that a significant number of people can share, as the cultural elite themselves are fragmented and disagree on what knowledge is essential for young people to learn.

Therefore, in our research within the Creative Diamond, we speak of ‘multiliteracies’ and stress the relevance of being able to translanguage and negotiate from and within different discourses: “negotiating a multiplicity of discourses.” (The New London Group, 1996: 61).

The New London Group’s publication in 1996, which discusses the concept of multiliteracies, emphasises the ability to navigate and engage with different discourses effectively.

In this context, “discourses” refers to distinct systems of language, knowledge, and communication that exist within various social, cultural, and educational contexts. These discourses can include academic, professional, social, cultural, or digital domains, each with its own unique language, norms, and practices.

The phrase “negotiating a multiplicity of discourses” suggests the capacity to interact and communicate across different discourses. It involves understanding the conventions, expectations, and ways of thinking within each discourse and being able to adapt one’s language, style, and behavior accordingly.

By developing multiliteracies and being able to navigate multiple discourses, individuals can effectively communicate, participate, and thrive in diverse social and cultural settings. It involves recognizing and appreciating the diverse ways in which language is used and understood, and being able to switch between different discourses as needed, depending on the context and purpose of communication.

Overall, the quotation highlights the importance of being flexible and adept in engaging with various discourses, recognizing that different situations call for different language choices and communication strategies.

Think about one word and then consider its context for a while. The quote “Every utterance is context-bound, but every context is boundless” is commonly attributed to the American philosopher and literary theorist Stanley Fish. It reflects his perspective on the relationship between language, meaning, and the influence of context. Fish made significant contributions to the fields of literary theory, rhetoric, and philosophy of language.

In “Speech Acts and Literary Theory,” which was published in 1970, Fish explores the concept of speech acts, which refers to the performative aspects of language. He delves into how language is not merely descriptive but also has the power to perform actions, shape social interactions, and create meaning. Fish’s analysis of speech acts provides valuable insights into understanding how language functions in literary texts and how readers interpret and respond to them.

Apart from Fish, several other notable scientists have contributed to the field of linguistics and philosophy of language. Here are a few examples with their notable works and publication years:

  1. John Searle: A renowned philosopher of language. His influential work includes “Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language” (1969) and “Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind” (1983).
  2. J.L. Austin: Considered one of the founders of speech act theory. His influential work is “How to Do Things with Words” (1962), which explores the performative nature of language.
  3. Ludwig Wittgenstein: An influential philosopher of language. His significant works include “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus” (1921) and “Philosophical Investigations” (1953), which delve into language, meaning, and communication.
  4. John Langshaw Austin: A philosopher known for his work on speech acts and ordinary language philosophy. His lectures on speech acts were compiled and published posthumously as “How to Do Things with Words” (1962).

These are just a few examples, and there are many other scientists who have contributed to the study of language and speech acts. Their works have greatly influenced our understanding of language, meaning, and communication in various contexts.

Jonathan Culler’s “Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction” was first published in 1997. “Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature” was first published in 1975. Jonathan Culler focuses on the relationship between language, context, and meaning in literary analysis.

Culler contributed to the field of literary analysis. His ideas revolve around the complex interplay between language, context, and meaning in the study of literature. Here is a summary of some of his key ideas:

  1. Structuralism and Semiotics: Culler draws heavily from structuralist and semiotic theories, which emphasize the role of signs, codes, and systems in the production and interpretation of meaning. He explores how language functions as a system of signs with specific rules and conventions.
  2. Interpretation and Context: Culler highlights the significance of context in interpreting literary texts. He argues that meaning is not solely determined by the words on the page but is constructed through the interaction between the text and its various contexts, including historical, cultural, social, and personal contexts.
  3. Reader-Response Theory: Culler emphasizes the active role of the reader in the process of meaning-making. He contends that readers bring their own backgrounds, experiences, and interpretations to the text, and their understanding of the literary work is shaped by their individual perspectives and cultural frameworks.
  4. Intertextuality: Culler explores the concept of intertextuality, which refers to the interconnectedness of texts. He argues that texts are not isolated entities but are influenced and shaped by other texts that came before them. Understanding these intertextual relationships can deepen our interpretation and understanding of a literary work.
  5. Literary Theory and Criticism: Culler also offers insights into the broader field of literary theory and criticism. He examines different theoretical approaches and methodologies used to analyze literature, including formalism, structuralism, deconstruction, and reader-response theory.

Overall, Culler’s ideas highlight the importance of considering language, context, and the reader in literary analysis. His work encourages a nuanced and multifaceted approach to understanding the complex nature of meaning in literature.

Richard Rorty’s theory revolves around the idea of vocabulary enrichment as a means of personal and social progress. In his work “Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity” published in 1989, Rorty argues that individuals should expand their vocabulary, not merely for the sake of accumulating more words, but to cultivate a diverse range of linguistic tools that enable them to engage with the world in different ways. According to Rorty, enriching one’s vocabulary allows for greater flexibility in interpretation, fostering a more nuanced understanding of the world and facilitating meaningful communication.

Rorty illustrates this concept using the example of the orchid. He suggests that if a person’s vocabulary is limited and they possess only one word to describe an orchid, such as “beautiful,” their understanding and appreciation of the orchid remain superficial. However, if they expand their vocabulary to include terms like “delicate,” “fragile,” “exquisite,” or “ethereal,” they acquire a richer linguistic repertoire that enables them to capture different aspects and experiences associated with the orchid. In this way, vocabulary enrichment broadens one’s capacity to perceive, express, and engage with the world.

Rorty’s theory emphasizes the transformative power of language and the importance of cultivating a diverse and flexible vocabulary to enhance one’s understanding of the world. By expanding our linguistic resources, we can develop a more nuanced and comprehensive perspective, enabling richer interactions and interpretations in our personal and social lives.

In the field of psychology and cognitive science, meaning is defined as the cognitive representation of the significance, interpretation, or understanding that individuals attribute to information, experiences, events, or symbols. It encompasses the subjective understanding and interpretation of the world and encompasses various dimensions such as semantic, conceptual, and symbolic associations. Meaning involves the process of making connections between different elements, organizing information into coherent structures, and assigning personal significance and value to experiences and knowledge. It is a complex and multifaceted construct that can be influenced by individual differences, cultural factors, context, and personal beliefs. The study of meaning seeks to understand how individuals derive purpose, coherence, and understanding from their interactions with the world and how this meaning-making process impacts cognition, emotions, and behavior.

One prominent scientist who extensively studied the concept of meaning is Viktor Frankl, an Austrian psychiatrist and neurologist. He defined meaning in his influential work “Man’s Search for Meaning,” which was first published in 1946. In the book, Frankl explores the existential quest for meaning in life and discusses his experiences as a Holocaust survivor. He proposes that finding personal meaning and purpose is a fundamental human motivation and an essential component for psychological well-being. Frankl’s work has had a significant impact on the field of psychology and has contributed to our understanding of the role of meaning in human existence.

Viktor Frankl’s concept of meaning, as described in his book “Man’s Search for Meaning,” can be related to the idea of cultural literacy. While cultural literacy primarily focuses on shared knowledge and understanding within a specific cultural context, Frankl’s notion of meaning delves deeper into the individual’s search for purpose and significance in life. Cultural literacy encompasses the knowledge necessary to navigate and participate in society, while Frankl’s concept of meaning emphasizes the personal quest for a sense of purpose and fulfillment. However, both concepts share the underlying idea that having a meaningful connection to the world around us is crucial for personal growth, well-being, and a deeper understanding of oneself and others. Cultural literacy can provide a framework within which individuals can explore and find meaning in the cultural contexts they encounter, enhancing their overall sense of purpose and connection to the world.

It is essential to approach the term “cultural literacy” with a critical mindset, recognizing its limitations and potential pitfalls when viewed in a static form. Cultural literacy, as a concept, has evolved over time, reflecting the changing social, political, and cultural landscapes. It is important to acknowledge that what constituted as essential knowledge in one era may not hold the same significance in another. Therefore, we must avoid treating cultural literacy as a fixed and unchanging entity. Instead, we should embrace a more dynamic perspective that acknowledges the evolving nature of culture and the diverse range of knowledge that contributes to a well-rounded understanding of society. By taking a historical overview of the concept, we can recognise the shifts in emphasis, the inclusion of previously marginalised voices, and the ongoing dialogue on what constitutes as meaningful and relevant knowledge in an increasingly interconnected and multicultural world. This critical approach allows us to engage with cultural literacy in a way that promotes inclusivity, critical thinking, and a deeper appreciation for the complexities of human experience.

In his work, Hirsch (1987) defines cultural literacy as “being able to read a quality newspaper critically and analytically.” In his book published in 1987, Hirsch presents the concept of cultural literacy as the shared knowledge that is assumed to be known by writers, academics, teachers, and others. It refers to the information that is often referenced in intellectual discussions and written materials without further explanation. Hirsch argues that cultural literacy is essential for success in the modern world and suggests that being able to critically read a quality newspaper is a key aspect of it. He believes that a baseline of shared knowledge among individuals would promote effective communication, enhance the exchange of ideas, and reduce social inequalities. Hirsch emphasizes the importance of schools in cultivating this shared knowledge to create a more cohesive and prosperous society.

In Gerald Graff’s book “Beyond the Culture Wars,” he discusses a “state of educational fragmentation” and raises the question of “What Should We be Teaching – When There is no ‘We’?” Graff suggests teaching the conflicts rather than seeking consensus, but his stance is challenged for not going beyond relativism. Hirsch’s cultural literacy concept has faced criticism for its alphabetical list approach, which aims to address educational fragmentation but is seen as imposing the knowledge of ruling elites. Furthermore, it is argued that factual knowledge alone does not ensure learning and good citizenship. Hirsch is also criticized for the conservative nature of his vision, disregarding the multicultural reality of society. Despite the criticism, the debate on cultural literacy remains relevant, reflecting the rapid changes in contemporary society and the erosion of traditional foundations of shared culture transmitted through education. There is a decline in the emphasis on classical languages, literature, Christian heritage, and national identity construction in the curriculum, reflecting the multicultural and multimedia nature of society. Concerns about the decline of the canon and traditional book culture have been expressed in public discussions, highlighting the effects of digitization and the diminishing societal support for reading classical books. The disappearance of a closed cultural elite and the rise of other media have contributed to society’s reduced emphasis on books.

In recent decades, the study of literacy has been characterized by two contrasting conceptual models, as identified by Street (1995). The first model, known as the autonomous model, perceives literacy as a technical and universal skill independent of its social context. It focuses on measuring literacy levels globally, establishing literacy programs, and determining standards for literacy attainment. Critics argue that this perspective reduces literacy to a commodity and overlooks its broader social implications. The autonomous model also reinforces the notion of literate cultures being superior to oral cultures, associating literacy with abstract thinking, logic, rationality, and intelligence. This belief suggests that literacy has elevated societies from primitive states and is considered a hallmark of civilization and intellectual development. Furthermore, there is a prevailing myth that literacy guarantees economic progress, social mobility, and personal growth. These assumptions reflect a perspective that has been challenged and subject to critical scrutiny in the field of literacy research (Verdoodt, “De Mythe van Geletterdheid).

The second conceptual model of literacy challenges the previously discussed view and adopts a socio-cultural approach to literacy. This model, known as the ideological model, emphasizes the importance of socialization processes and explores the role of social institutions in constructing the meaning of literacy. It questions claims made by Western educators about the “openness” and “rationality” of literacy, investigating how teaching practices contribute to social control and the dominance of certain groups. Rather than emphasizing a divide between oral and literate modes, this model focuses on their overlap and interaction. Researchers in this field, such as Shirley Brice Heath, David Barton, Mike Baynham, and Brian Street, examine the precise meaning and significance of literacy for individuals and specific communities. They argue that literacy goes beyond a neutral ability to read and write; it involves reading and interpreting texts in specific ways within cultural practices. Literacy is acquired through immersion in social settings where certain texts are read, discussed, and valued. These practices are closely tied to broader cultural practices and encompass various aspects of language use, interaction, thinking, values, and beliefs. The inseparability of literacy from cultural practices is emphasized, highlighting that literacy cannot be isolated from the overall social context in which it operates.

Since the 1980s, literacy research, particularly by American linguist Gee, has shed light on the nature of language and literacy within broader contexts. Gee introduces the concept of ‘Discourse’ to describe the social contexts in which literacy operates, encompassing ways of behaving, interacting, valuing, thinking, believing, speaking, and reading/writing specific to different groups. He argues that there are multiple literacies tied to different Discourses, such as cyberpunks, physicists, factory workers, executives, and gang members, each with their own social languages. We all participate in various Discourses, and conflicts arise when these intersect. Our identity formation involves drawing from different Discourses, and our literacy in a diverse society is determined by our ability to transition between them. Gee also highlights the link between Discourse, language, literacy, and ideology, suggesting that language cannot be understood separately from its ideological underpinnings.

Educators, sociologists, and anthropologists have conducted research highlighting the connection between literacy, identity, power, and ideology. Scholars like Paulo Freire argue that literacy education involves “reading the world” and developing critical consciousness to challenge oppressive power dynamics. The concept of “critical literacy” and “critical pedagogy” gained prominence through figures like Henry Giroux and Peter McLaren, emphasizing hidden power relations. The autonomous model of literacy is critiqued for imposing Western conceptions onto other cultures or social groups, reinforcing dominant ideologies. Pierre Bourdieu’s work explores the intertwining of literacy and power, with literacy representing cultural capital. Bourdieu’s research reveals the unequal distribution of capital, including linguistic capital, shaped by social structures. Literacy’s impact on social mobility is limited, as education tends to reproduce inequalities. The notion of multiple literacies and their contested nature is recognized within the New Literacy Studies, challenging dominant and marginalized literacies.

The idea of “multiple literacies” is connected to our ever-changing world. The New London Group, a team of researchers focused on the future of literacy education, was the first to gather and highlight the various “literacies” in their 1996 manifesto titled “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures” (published in the Harvard Educational Review, later included in Cope & Kalantzis, 2000).

The New London Group’s article discusses how the social context of learning has changed and how it impacts literacy education. They explore the effects of these changes on what (content) and how (form) we teach cultural literacy.

The New London Group aims to broaden the concept of literacy in their pedagogical vision. Traditionally, literacy education focused on teaching reading and writing in standard forms of the national language. However, they argue that literacy should include the ability to navigate multiple discourses. This multiplicity is driven by two key factors in contemporary society: cultural and linguistic diversity and the proliferation of communication channels and media, including visual images and digital technologies. These changes require a shift in literacy education, where citizens need to be multiliterate and competent in various forms of communication. The New London Group emphasizes the importance of cultural and linguistic diversity, the negotiation of different dialects and registers, and the ability to understand visual and iconic meanings. They advocate for a flexible and tolerant approach in schools that acknowledges and embraces differences and prepares students for a pluralistic society. The merging of private and public realms and the complexity of individuals’ identities are also highlighted. The article argues that literacy education should provide a critical perspective to navigate diversity and evaluate different “lifeworlds.” Instead of erasing differences, schools should embrace pluralism and design pedagogies that respect and include diverse subjectivities. The rest of the article develops a pedagogical vision centered around multiliteracies and the concept of design (The New London Group, 1996).

The shift from viewing literacy as a singular concept to understanding it as “literacies” or “literacy practices” and “literacy events” has gained traction since The New London Group’s article. Earlier works by authors such as Heath, Gee, Barton, Street, and Baynham have contributed to this perspective. Scribner and Cole’s exploration of the cognitive differences between literate and illiterate individuals within specific social practices further established the link between literacy and broader social contexts. The sociocultural approach, advocated by researchers like Baynham, emphasizes the importance of studying literacy as a social practice, considering its linguistic and socio-structural context, as well as the role of discourses and ideologies. Literacy practices encompass tangible activities, value interpretations, and associated ideologies, encompassing both action and knowledge. Barton and Hamilton emphasize that literacy practices involve cultural utilization of written language, including values, attitudes, emotions, and social relationships. These practices are influenced by social rules that govern text usage and distribution. Within this framework, literacy events are observable episodes arising from practices and situated in a social context. They involve activities where literacy plays a role, often centered around written texts and accompanying talk. Examining various literacy events, such as reading a recipe while cooking or engaging with newspapers, offers valuable insights into literacy research (The New London Group, 1996; Heath, 1983; Gee, 1990, 1996; Barton, 1991; Street, 1984, 1995; Baynham, 1995; Scribner & Cole, 1981 (cited in Baynham, 1995); Barton & Hamilton, 1998, 2000).

Barton and Hamilton’s examination of literacy practices and events reveals several insights into reading and writing. They emphasize the interconnectedness of written and spoken language and the multimodal nature of literacy events, where various semiotic systems are utilized. In these events, written language is integrated with mathematical systems, musical notation, maps, and non-text-based images. Understanding literacy as a communicative resource within communities allows for exploration of its relation to other mass media and new technologies. This research aligns with Gunther Kress’s work on visual literacy and multimodality, highlighting the importance of recognizing different modes within written texts and the diverse meanings they convey in communication. The advent of multimedia technology has rekindled awareness of the multimodal nature of written texts, combining written language, visual elements, and auditory components. Barton and Hamilton also emphasize the existence of multiple literacies, which can encompass practices involving different media, symbolic systems, cultures, and languages. Literacies are seen as coherent configurations of practices associated with specific aspects of cultural life (Barton & Hamilton, 2000: 9-11).

Adding to the additons to the word ‘literacy’ as: cultural literacy, visual literacy, digital literacy, environmental literacy, family literacy, fashion literacy, and so on,, even more recently, particularly through ethnographic research, an increasing number of different literacies have been “discovered.” The books in Routledge’s prestigious Literacies series serve as an interesting showcase of the preoccupations and innovations of current literacy research: Multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000), Situated Literacies (Barton, Hamilton & Ivanic, 2000), Global Literacies and the World-Wide Web (Hawisher & Selfe, 2000), City Literacies (Gregory & Williams, 2000), Literacy and Development (Street, 2001), Silicon Literacies (Snyder, 2002), African American Literacies (Richardson, 2002), Literacy in the New Media Age (Kress, 2003), and Popular Culture, Media and Digital Literacies in Early Childhood (Marsh, forthcoming: 2004).

Based on the aforementioned view of literacy as literacy practices and literacy events, Barton and Hamilton (2000, 8) propose six summary statements about the nature of literacy:

  1. Literacy is best understood as a set of social practices, which can be inferred from events mediated by written texts.
  2. There are different literacies associated with different domains of life.
  3. Literacy practices are patterned by social institutions and power relationships, and some literacies are more dominant, visible, and influential than others.
  4. Literacy practices are purposeful and embedded in broader social goals and cultural practices.
  5. Literacy is historically situated.
  6. Literacy practices change, and new ones are frequently acquired through processes of informal learning and sense-making.

An important trend in literacy research since the 1980s, inspired by the concept of literacy practices, is the distinction between “dominant literacy practices” associated with powerful institutions and individuals, and “vernacular literacy practices” prevalent among communities with less power. Barton and Hamilton identify six essential domains of everyday life where reading and writing are crucial, such as organizing life, personal communication, private leisure, and social participation. These practices, rooted in everyday experience and serving everyday goals, are informally learned and often associated with the home environment. The research conducted by Barton and Hamilton employs ethnographic methods to explore the meaning attributed to these literacy practices within specific communities. Their work emphasizes that literacy practices are group or community practices and should be seen as a community resource rather than an individual attribute. While there are social rules and regulations surrounding particular literacies, individual choice and personal life history also play a role in shaping literacy practices (Barton & Hamilton, 2000: 13-14; 1998: 247-251).

Towards a broad definition of ‘literacy’: James Gee’s Discourses Theory In our examination of the representation of the myth of literacy in film, we aim to adopt a broad description or definition of literacy, where the following keywords are inherently linked to literacy: (multi-)literacies, identity, lifestyle, cultural (symbolic) capital, taste, distinction, power, and ideology. Most of these concepts are directly or indirectly found in James Gee’s Discourses Theory of literacy, which, to some extent, is indebted to or related to the ideas of thinkers such as Wittgenstein, Foucault, and Bourdieu. We delve deeper and provide more detailed explanations since we also intend to use Gee’s theory as a lens to examine the cinematic representations of the myth of literacy. In this way, the concept of Discourse (with a capital ‘D’) becomes a sort of “thinking device” or “tool of inquiry” (Gee, 1999: 37). We also occasionally compare or confront Gee’s insights with those of others in this section.

Gee’s definition of ‘literacy’ emphasizes that language goes beyond grammar and focuses on appropriate language use in specific contexts. He illustrates this by contrasting grammatically correct statements that may still be considered wrong in a given situation. Gee emphasizes that it’s not only about what is said, but also who is saying it and what they are doing. The alignment between words, actions, beliefs, values, and attitudes is crucial in socially situated language use. Each individual adapts their language use and actions based on the context, constructing a socially-situated identity and enacting specific roles within a Discourse. A Discourse encompasses not only words and acts but also values, beliefs, attitudes, social identities, gestures, and appearance (Gee, 1996: 124, 127; 1999: 13).

Considering navigating your way through different discourses, we stop to reflect on the meaning of ‘translanguaging’ here. Translanguaging is a term coined by Cen Williams and Ofelia García in their seminal work titled “Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB Guide for Educators” published in 2012. Translanguaging refers to the dynamic language practices of bilingual individuals or communities who fluidly and seamlessly draw upon their entire linguistic repertoire to communicate and make meaning. It challenges traditional views of languages as separate and distinct entities, instead recognizing language as a holistic and integrated system. Translanguaging promotes the use of all available linguistic resources for effective communication and learning, enabling individuals to transcend language boundaries and navigate multiple languages and modalities. It has been particularly influential in the field of bilingual and multilingual education, highlighting the valuable role of students’ diverse language resources in educational settings.

We stress the concept of ‘negotiating’ in different discourses here. The concept of “negotiating” in different discourses has been explored by various researchers in the field of discourse analysis and sociolinguistics. One notable scholar who has contributed to this area is James Paul Gee. In his book “An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method,” first published in 1999, Gee discusses the notion of negotiating as a key aspect of discourse. He examines how individuals engage in interactive processes to navigate and make sense of social situations, drawing upon their linguistic and cultural resources. Gee emphasizes the importance of understanding discourse as a dynamic and collaborative activity where participants negotiate meanings, identities, and power relations. Through negotiation, individuals strive to achieve mutual understanding and navigate social contexts effectively. Gee’s work has been influential in shaping the field of discourse analysis and highlighting the interactive and context-dependent nature of language use.

Therefore, James Paul Gee’s concept of Discourse connects language, identity, and social roles, emphasizing that Discourses are not solely based on language but also encompass other aspects. Gee describes Discourses as “Big D” Discourses, which include language along with other factors. For instance, he illustrates this idea with the example of the “Sherlock Holmes Discourse,” which involves specific clothes, language use (oral and written), attitudes, beliefs, and lifestyle. Gee’s understanding of lifestyle within the concept of Discourse appears narrower than in other perspectives, such as that of Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu views society as a structured class society, where social and cultural spaces align to some extent. Cultural choices and behaviors, including taste, are influenced by an individual’s social and cultural capital, which are shaped by social positions and power relations within society (Tacq, 2003). Thus, cultural tastes are not purely individual but strongly influenced by group interests and social dynamics.

Secondary Discourses encompass not only language use but also ways of thinking, valuing, and behaving beyond our primary Discourse, irrespective of our group affiliation. If individuals lack mastery of a necessary secondary Discourse, they may resort to their primary Discourse and adapt it to meet the new demands, explore related secondary Discourses, or employ simplified or stereotyped versions of the required secondary Discourse. Building on the concepts of primary and secondary Discourses, Gee defines literacy as the mastery of a secondary Discourse, emphasizing that literacy is always plural, referring to various secondary Discourses. He suggests that literacy can be understood as the mastery of a secondary Discourse involving print or other forms of texts and technologies, such as visual practices, digital practices, and more. This understanding of literacy, linked to secondary Discourses and their constituent parts, serves as a framework to examine cinematic representations of the myth of literacy (Gee, 1996: 144).

Negotiating aligns more with rhizomatic learning. Rhizomatic learning is an educational theory and approach that emphasizes the interconnected and non-linear nature of knowledge and learning. It draws inspiration from the concept of rhizomes, which are root structures in plants that grow horizontally and create a complex network of connections.

Rhizomatic learning was first introduced by the educational theorists Deleuze and Guattari in their book “A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia,” published in 1980. They used the rhizome as a metaphor for understanding knowledge and learning as a decentralized, interconnected, and ever-evolving process.

According to the concept of rhizomatic learning, knowledge is not a fixed and predetermined structure but rather a dynamic and continuously evolving network. It suggests that learning should focus on exploration, connectivity, and adaptability rather than rigid hierarchies and linear progression.

In rhizomatic learning, learners are encouraged to explore diverse sources of information, make connections between different ideas and perspectives, and actively participate in the co-creation of knowledge. The emphasis is on fostering critical thinking, collaboration, and the ability to navigate and contribute to complex and ever-changing knowledge landscapes.

Rhizomatic learning challenges traditional notions of education that are based on linear curricula, fixed syllabi, and predefined learning outcomes. Instead, it promotes a more flexible and learner-centered approach that embraces uncertainty, creativity, and the capacity to learn and adapt in a rapidly changing world.

These concepts relate to dynamics in various fields such as sociology, cultural and literary studies, psychology, language studies, physics, biology, systems theory, and complexity science. They highlight the dynamic nature of systems, the interactions between their components, and the patterns that arise from their behavior over time. These additional concepts shed light on the dynamics of systems, including their ability to adapt, exhibit emergent properties, undergo transitions, and interact within complex networks. They capture various aspects of dynamic systems and provide valuable insights into their behavior, organisation, and evolution. highlighting the influence of feedback, coevolution, and sensitivity, as well as phenomena like fractals and path dependence. They delve into the complex interplay between stability and change, adaptation and inertia, and the capacity of systems to self-organize and respond to perturbations in their environment. They further explore the dynamics of complex systems, addressing topics such as emergence, resilience, chaos, synchronization, and percolation. They also delve into the role of memory, hierarchy, and sensitivity analysis in understanding and analyzing system behavior.

Based on the previous definitions and critical discussions of theories on cultural literacy, my own definition would be as follows:

Cultural literacy is the ability to navigate and meaningfully engage with the diverse cultural landscapes and contexts of a society, both in the present and future. It entails understanding and appreciating the multiplicity of Discourses and secondary Discourses that shape social interactions, values, beliefs, and behaviors. Cultural literacy involves not only linguistic competence but also the development of flexible and adaptable skills, including the capacity to critically analyse and interpret various forms of communication, media, and technologies. It recognises that cultural literacy is a dynamic and evolving concept, necessitating continuous learning, openness to new perspectives, and a willingness to challenge and reshape existing cultural norms and narratives. Moreover, cultural literacy acknowledges the importance of intercultural understanding, empathy, and respect in fostering inclusive and cohesive societies in an increasingly interconnected global world.

Applying the definition of cultural literacy to the future of curricula and classroom practices, including digital technologies and the role of AI, would involve several key considerations.

  1. Embracing cultural diversity: Recognizing the increasingly diverse societies we live in, curricula should be designed to cultivate cultural literacy that goes beyond a single dominant culture. It should incorporate a wide range of cultural perspectives, histories, and practices, fostering empathy, respect, and understanding among students.
  2. Digital literacy and critical thinking: As digital technologies continue to shape our lives, educational systems should prioritize digital literacy skills. This involves teaching students how to navigate digital platforms, critically evaluate online information, and engage responsibly in digital spaces. Emphasizing critical thinking and media literacy is crucial to help students discern reliable sources of information and develop a healthy skepticism towards manipulated content.
  3. Ethical use of AI: With the increasing integration of AI in various aspects of society, including education, it is essential to educate students about the ethical implications of AI technologies. This includes discussions on privacy, bias, algorithmic decision-making, and the potential impact of AI on social dynamics. Students should be encouraged to critically analyze and question the role and limitations of AI in their lives.
  4. Collaborative and experiential learning: Cultural literacy should be fostered through collaborative and experiential learning approaches. This involves providing opportunities for students to engage in real-world contexts, interact with diverse communities, and actively participate in projects that explore different cultures and perspectives. Classroom practices should encourage dialogue, cooperation, and the exchange of ideas among students from diverse backgrounds.
  5. Lifelong learning and adaptability: Recognizing that cultural dynamics are constantly evolving, curricula should promote a mindset of lifelong learning and adaptability. Students should be equipped with the skills and attitudes necessary to embrace change, learn from diverse cultures, and navigate new cultural landscapes. This includes fostering curiosity, resilience, and an openness to different ways of knowing and being.

In summary, the future of curricula and classroom practices should prioritize the development of cultural literacy that encompasses digital literacy, critical thinking, ethical considerations regarding AI, collaborative learning, and a lifelong learning mindset. By doing so, education can prepare students to actively participate in and shape culturally diverse societies, effectively navigate digital environments, and critically engage with emerging technologies and AI.

To support teachers around the world in implementing cultural literacy in their classrooms, here are three practical steps they can take, along with classroom practices that can be easily implemented:

  1. Embrace cultural diversity:
    • Step 1: Foster an inclusive and culturally responsive classroom environment by celebrating and valuing the diverse backgrounds, languages, and perspectives of students.
    • Step 2: Incorporate culturally diverse resources, materials, and literature into lesson plans, ensuring representation and promoting understanding.
    • Classroom Practice: Use the can-do statements of personal development within a socio-cultural context as a basis for creating lessons. Design activities that encourage students to share their cultural experiences, engage in dialogue, and learn from one another.
  2. Develop digital literacy and critical thinking:
    • Step 1: Integrate digital tools and technologies into lessons to enhance student engagement and promote digital literacy skills.
    • Step 2: Teach students how to critically evaluate online information, recognize bias, and navigate digital platforms responsibly.
    • Classroom Practice: Assign projects that require students to research and analyze different cultural perspectives using digital resources. Guide them in critically examining the credibility and accuracy of online sources.
  3. Promote ethical use of AI:
    • Step 1: Introduce discussions on the ethical implications of AI technologies, such as privacy, bias, and algorithmic decision-making.
    • Step 2: Encourage students to think critically about the role of AI in society and its potential impact on cultural dynamics.
    • Classroom Practice: Engage students in activities where they explore the ethical considerations of AI in different cultural contexts. Encourage them to reflect on the potential consequences of AI applications and discuss responsible AI use.

By following these steps and implementing the suggested classroom practices, teachers can actively cultivate cultural literacy in their classrooms. It will empower students to appreciate cultural diversity, develop digital literacy skills, think critically about AI, and engage in meaningful dialogue within a socio-cultural context. Ultimately, this approach will equip students with the necessary skills to navigate an increasingly diverse and digitally interconnected world.

In addition to the practical steps outlined above, teachers can benefit from considering the concept of curricular alignment proposed by John Biggs. Curricular alignment refers to the intentional design and sequencing of learning activities, assessments, and objectives to ensure that they are aligned with desired learning outcomes. According to Biggs, alignment occurs when there is coherence between what is intended to be taught (the curriculum), how it is taught (the teaching methods), and how it is assessed (the assessment tasks). This holistic approach ensures that all elements of the curriculum work together to support students’ achievement of the intended learning outcomes. The concept of curricular alignment has been widely discussed in educational research and is especially relevant to enhancing students’ cultural literacy. (Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. Open University Press).

Another valuable approach that can support the development of cultural literacy in literary education is the Whole Task First Methodology. This methodology emphasizes engaging students in authentic, meaningful tasks that reflect real-world applications of cultural literacy. It encourages students to explore diverse texts and cultural contexts, fostering a rhizomatic learning experience that promotes interconnectedness and exploration of multiple perspectives. By designing assignments that require students to analyze and interpret texts within their socio-cultural contexts, teachers can facilitate the development of cultural literacy skills. This approach encourages students to make connections between their personal experiences, the text, and the broader cultural landscape, promoting critical thinking, empathy, and a deeper understanding of cultural diversity. Through the Whole Task First Methodology, teachers can create assignments that empower students to actively construct their own knowledge and meaning, cultivating their cultural literacy in a rich and meaningful way.

To create an inclusive classroom environment that promotes positive psychological well-being and fosters meaningful connections among students, it is crucial to incorporate pedagogical principles such as positive psychology, unconditional positive regard, and the theory of autonomy, relatedness, and competence. Positive psychology (Seligman, 2002), focuses on cultivating individuals’ strengths and well-being, shifting the traditional deficit-based approach to education. Unconditional positive regard (Rogers), emphasizes the importance of creating a non-judgmental and accepting atmosphere where students feel valued and respected for who they are. Deci and Ryan’s theory of autonomy, relatedness, and competence, rooted in self-determination theory, highlights the significance of providing students with a sense of choice, fostering positive relationships, and offering opportunities for developing competence and mastery. Incorporating these pedagogical principles aligns with the philosophy of Levinas (1969), who emphasizes the ethical responsibility of educators to prioritize the needs and well-being of their students. By implementing these approaches, teachers can create an inclusive classroom environment that promotes positive psychological development, respects individual identities, and encourages students to thrive academically and socially.

Integrating a learning line of cultural literacy based on practical can-do statements derived from the CEFR framework in classrooms can have numerous benefits for both teachers and students. The rationale to support this integration is as follows:

  1. Fostering inclusive and cohesive societies: Cultural literacy enables students to navigate and engage meaningfully with diverse cultural landscapes and contexts. By integrating cultural literacy in classrooms, teachers promote understanding, empathy, and respect among students from different cultural backgrounds. This fosters inclusive and cohesive societies, where individuals appreciate and celebrate cultural diversity rather than view it as a source of division.
  2. Enhancing critical thinking and media literacy: Cultural literacy involves developing the skills to critically analyze and interpret various forms of communication, media, and technologies. By integrating cultural literacy in classrooms, teachers provide students with the tools to discern reliable sources of information, recognize bias, and engage responsibly in digital spaces. This cultivates critical thinking and media literacy skills that are essential in today’s information-rich society.
  3. Promoting intercultural understanding: Cultural literacy emphasizes the importance of intercultural understanding, which is crucial in an interconnected global world. By integrating cultural literacy in classrooms, teachers expose students to a wide range of cultural perspectives, histories, and practices, enabling them to appreciate the richness and complexity of different cultures. This promotes respect, empathy, and the ability to engage constructively with individuals from diverse backgrounds.
  4. Equipping students for the digital age: Cultural literacy encompasses digital literacy skills, which are increasingly important in the digital age. By integrating cultural literacy in classrooms, teachers prepare students to navigate digital platforms, critically evaluate online information, and engage responsibly in digital environments. These skills are vital for students’ academic and professional success in a digitally interconnected world.
  5. Addressing ethical considerations: Cultural literacy acknowledges the ethical implications of emerging technologies, including AI. By integrating cultural literacy in classrooms, teachers engage students in discussions about the ethical use of AI, privacy concerns, bias, and algorithmic decision-making. This empowers students to understand and critically analyze the impact of AI on cultural dynamics and to make informed decisions about their own engagement with AI technologies.
  6. Nurturing lifelong learners: Cultural literacy recognizes that cultural dynamics are constantly evolving, necessitating continuous learning and adaptability. By integrating cultural literacy in classrooms, teachers foster a mindset of lifelong learning, curiosity, and openness to different ways of knowing and being. This prepares students to embrace change, learn from diverse cultures, and navigate new cultural landscapes throughout their lives.
  7. Integrating technology and cultural diversity into education: harnessing the power and transformative role of technology in education. Integrating cultural literacy in classrooms through practical can-do statements based on the CEFR framework can be enhanced by leveraging technology as a tool for learning. By incorporating digital tools and platforms, teachers can provide students with opportunities to explore cultural diversity, engage in authentic learning experiences, and collaborate with peers globally. This integration of technology enhances students’ cultural literacy by expanding their access to diverse resources, facilitating communication and collaboration across cultures, and fostering digital citizenship skills.
  8. Creating authentic learning experiences that connect students’ learning to real-world contexts. By integrating cultural literacy in classrooms, teachers can design tasks and projects that require students to engage with diverse cultures and perspectives in meaningful ways. This could involve connecting with individuals from different cultures through virtual exchanges, conducting interviews or surveys to gain firsthand knowledge, or participating in community-based projects that address cultural issues. These authentic learning experiences enhance students’ cultural literacy by enabling them to apply their knowledge and skills in real-life situations, promoting a deeper understanding of cultural diversity.
  9. Emphasising learner-centered approaches: integrating cultural literacy in classrooms aligns with the principle of placing students at the center of their learning. By incorporating practical can-do statements based on the CEFR framework, teachers encourage students to actively engage in their own cultural learning and development. This approach promotes autonomy, self-directed learning, and the development of critical thinking skills as students navigate and meaningfully engage with diverse cultural landscapes.
  10. Cultivating collaboration and cultural exchanges: integrating cultural literacy in classrooms provides opportunities for students to collaborate with peers from different cultural backgrounds, fostering cultural exchange and mutual learning. By engaging in collaborative projects, discussions, and activities, students can develop empathy, cross-cultural communication skills, and a deeper appreciation for cultural diversity. This collaborative and interactive approach enhances students’ cultural literacy by enabling them to learn from one another, challenge existing cultural norms, and develop a more nuanced understanding of the multiplicity of cultural discourses.

Overall, integrating a learning line of cultural literacy based on practical can-do statements aligned with the CEFR framework in classrooms is essential to prepare students for the diverse, interconnected, and digital world they will face. By harnessing the power of technology, creating authentic learning experiences, emphasizing learner-centered approaches, and promoting collaboration and cultural exchange, teachers can enhance students’ cultural literacy, preparing them to navigate an increasingly diverse and interconnected world. By promoting inclusive societies, critical thinking, intercultural understanding, digital literacy, ethical considerations, and lifelong learning, teachers can empower students to actively participate in and shape culturally diverse societies, effectively navigate digital environments, and critically engage with emerging technologies and AI.

References:

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.

Deleuze & Guattari, 1980. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.

Foucault, M. (1971). L’ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard.

Foucault, M. (1972). “Truth and Power”, in: Gordon, C. (ed.), Power/Knowledge. New York:
Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1988). De orde van het spreken. Amsterdam: Boom Meppel.

Gee, J.P. (1990). Social Linguistics and Literacies. Ideology in Discourses. Brighton: Falmer
Press.

Gee, J.P. (1996). Social Linguistics and Literacies. Ideology in Discourses. Second Edition.
London/Philadelphia: Routledge/Falmer (reprint: 2002).

Gee, J.P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Theory and Method. London and New
York: Routledge.

Gee, J.P. (2003). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. New York
and London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Graff, G. (1988). “What Should We Be Teaching – When There is no ‘We’?”. The Yale Journal of
Criticism, 1 (2), 189-211.

Graff, G. (1992). Beyond the Culture Wars. How Teaching the Conflicts can Revitalize American
Education. New York/London: W.W.Norton & Company (paperback edition 1993).

Graff, G. (2003). “Clouding the Issues”. The University of Chicago Magazine, 95(4). Excerpt from
Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in Academe: How Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind. Yale
University Press. Retrieved May 25, 2004 from http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0304/features/clouding-print.html

Graff, H. J. (1979). The Literacy Myth. Cultural Integration and Social Structure in the Nineteenth
Century. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers (reprint: 1991).

Graff, H.J. (1995). The Labyrinths of Literacy. Reflections on Literacy Past and Present. Revised
and Expanded Edition. Pittsburgh and London: University of Pittsburgh Press (first published:
1987).

Graff, H.J. (n.d.). “The persisting power and costs of the Literacy Myth”. Working Papers on
Literacy. Retrieved August 10, 2004, from the National Adult Literacy Base (NALD):
http://www.nald.ca/province/que/litcent/publication_products/working/page3.htm

Gregory, E. & Williams, A. (2000). City Literacies. Learning to read across generations and
cultures. London and New York: Routledge.

Kommers, P. 2022. Sources for a Better Education Lessons from Research and Best Practices.

Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority. Duquesne University Press.)

Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95-103;

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. Free Press;

The New London Group (1996). “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures”.
Harvard Educational Review, 66 (1), 60-92.