William E. French. The Heart in the Glass Jar

For some time now there has been a debate going on in the midst of social and cultural history regarding the relationship between oral and literate culture. Some historians, such as Walter J. Ong (Orality and Literacy [1982]), claim that literacy has an impact on memory, on the understandings of the self, on the sense of privacy and time, and on the way we conceptualize history. The transformative power of writing seemed to them to be uncontestable. Others, such as Laura Ahearn (Invitations to Love [2001]), however, are skeptical of the assumed effects of literacy. These historians interpret literacy as a social practice historically determined. Social settings and cultural contexts are critical to assess the effects of literacy. They prefer to treat literacy in the plural. “Literacies” can have many meanings depending on the group, gender, and institutional settings. Likewise, literacy has traditionally been associated with elites. Subalterns are often illiterate. Yet, this claim has also been challenged. As Frank L. Salomon and Mercedes Niño-Murcia argued in their book The Lettered Mountain (2011), literacy as a social practice has had a long history in non-elite societies, such as in Peruvian villages even before independence. Writing played a key role in such societies. Often these writings involved the drafting of highly legalistic documents, administrative papers, account books, and receipts, among others. Writing, after all, it seems, was not the sole privilege of elites.

Elite · Literacy · Orality · Political science · Politics · Power (physics) · Privilege (computing) · Skepticism · Sociology · Colonialism, slavery, and trade · Gender Studies · Historical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis · Historical Studies in Latin America · History · Law