Ever heard of media literacy?
If not, you’re fortunate. The term is relatively new, although it apparently goes all the way back to some time in the 1930s. Part of the problem of figuring it out is that what it refers to is somewhat nebulous.
The casual observer might hear the term and assume that it refers to a collection of tools that help a person extract meaning from media. What makes media literacy so tricky is that the casual observer is correct. At the same time, they’re not.
Most people would break the phrase down to its constituent parts, beginning with “media”, which in this case clearly refers to entertainment in any medium, and “literacy,” which is the ability to understand and create the media in question.
Once upon a time it was thought that literacy developed in the same way one develops a facility for speech – through gradual exposure to writing over time. This theory is largely disproven at this point but its aftereffects are still felt. In the brief time this theory of mind existed an entire new theory of education was built on top of it and the way people were taught to read changed entirely.
At my age I remember the days of phonics. If you were like me, you were taught to read by looking at each letter in a word and assigning a sound to them. You probably said them out loud at first, to help you build the association. When you strung all the sounds together, voila! You’ve read a word.
That is not how reading is taught now.
These days, students are taught reading using a system known as “whole word comprehension” which we will refer to as the cuing method. When reading with this methodology, students look at the general shape of a group of letters. If they recognize the shape of the letters they can assign a meaning to it while if they don’t they look at the first letter of the word and guess.
This is not a joke. Here is Amanda Malone, the state literacy director of Mississippi explaining this “method” to a reporter:
Another method she mentions in this brief exchange is cuing students using pictures connected to words, which I have chosen as the term for this method overall. Neither of these methods is particularly good at creating actual literacy in students. Mississippi used to rank near the bottom of state literacy rates but, since reforms put in place by the state and carried out by Malone and her colleagues, Mississippi has shot up into the top ten states for student literacy.
All well and good, certainly, but the cuing method of teaching literacy has prevailed in schools for some time and it will take time for reforms (and the students educated by them) to spread into the broader culture. That leaves us with its shortcomings for quite some time. Assuming that the old, phonics driven method of education ever makes a complete return.
See, the cuing method is very seductive for teachers. It does something that phonics does not. When students are taught to read via cuing it makes the student entirely dependent on the teacher to figure out the meaning of every word. As Malone and the report discuss, even a simple three letter word that starts with “c” could have any number of meanings. It is teachers who shape the words. Not readers.
And they don’t just get to set the meanings of words. They can shape emotional reactions by always placing those meanings in specific contexts. This has the knock on effect of making the words feel meaningless in new contexts, even though human language is designed to be flexible enough to fit multiple contexts. However, if teachers never present specific framings of words they can make those frames feel alien and even offensive to their students.
Scale this back up to media literacy. What does it mean to be media literate?
A lot, actually.
Psychologically, people tend to structure their thoughts based on the last form of communication they’ve learned. Literacy, as previously noted, is not natural and thus tends to come very late in a person’s communication education. Unless you are a polyglot who learns numerous languages, you are probably going to construct thoughts using the literacy techniques you were taught in elementary school.
This means that modern media literacy is built on the cuing principle.
If you’ve ever tipped your toes into YouTube media criticism you’ll quickly discover that there are whole spheres of commentary that are designed to cue up framings for stories so people can understand them. We’ve actually spent the two previous weeks discussing the results of that. Yes, I believe the tendency to judge characters and stories by archetypes and genres is a direct result of the cuing principle that was used to educate readers.
This is how many people can look at two characters as radically different as Monkey D. Luffy and Rocks D. Xebec and say that they are the same. Readers are cued by the “D.” and the fact they are both pirates. So the readers lump these two characters into the same category, in spite of the massive differences in goals and methodology.
Media is a vast and expansive subject so no one group of teachers can cue audiences into how to interpret media. In fact, the aforementioned YouTube Media critics existed largely to help the cuing process. It is understanding this massive body of cues and expanding it as new media is created that makes one media literate. Not only must one know the cues, one must also know the orthodoxy. After all, cuing isn’t only done to inform the meaning of the media, it’s framed to provoke certain reactions to it. If you try to frame media in the wrong way it’s not a sign that the media may mean multiple things. It’s a sign you’re media illiterate.
It is an extremely narrow minded methodology.
That is the part that worries me the most about the cuing method of literacy. If there is a group of skills we might call “social literacy” that govern how we understand and think about the people and culture around us, and if we were to apply the cuing method in that sphere, we would not call the result enlightened thought. We would call it bigotry.
Is it a coincidence we are living in an era where this kind of short sighted prejudice, once thought a thing of the past, is making a sudden return? No, it’s not. Sadly, such things are very comforting to the heart of man. Neither is it directly a consequence of the way we are taught to read, although I am certain the cuing method of literacy doesn’t help.
By the same token, I don’t think simply taking up phonics and learning to break down words, stories and people piece by piece is a magical panacea that will counter this trend. There are evils that come about from going too far into the opposite direction as well. Ultimately, you must first start from a position of good will towards your fellow man, an understanding of the frailties of mankind and a heaping helping of divine grace before such fundamental flaws in human nature can be addressed.
However, if you’ve gotten that far and still find yourself jumping to these archetypes in all areas of life, a simple change in your method of literacy may help. At the least, it can slow down your leaping on cues long enough for you to analyze them. It will make you a better thinker and writer. Or so we can hope.
For purposes of full disclosure, my research into the literacy revolution in America is vastly incomplete. Currently I am working through a list of materials assembled by Hilary Lane. I give her full credit for assembling it and admit my own thoughts on this are influenced by hers. If you’re interested in a deeper dive into the history, methods and motives behind this change, I recommend looking through her article and picking up a few of the books she lists. It’s an enlightening experience. You can find it here:
https://www.hilarylayne.com/p/very-carefully-educated-to-be-idiots