Literacy and Democracy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience ISSN: 2327-3798 (Print) 2327-3801 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/plcp21 Literacy and democracy José Morais To cite this article: José Morais (2017): Literacy and democracy, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2017.1305116 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1305116 Published online: 31 Mar 2017. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=plcp21 Download by: [87.65.55.233] Date: 01 April 2017, At: 00:55 LANGUAGE, COGNITION AND NEUROSCIENCE, 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1305116 Literacy and democracy José Morais UNESCOG, Centre for Research in Cognition and Neuroscience, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY It is argued that literacy and democracy interact in dynamic reciprocity. Their mutual influences may Received 5 July 2016 be either positive or negative: they are negative when literacy, unequally distributed, is reduced to Accepted 12 February 2017 mere skills (even if these are highly sophisticated), rather than conducive to free, argumentative and KEYWORDS critical thinking, inspired by humanist values. Furthermore, in the case of pseudo-democracy, when Literacy; democracy; elections said to be free replace well-informed public debate and collective decision-making, as well ’ illiteracy; mind plasticity; as the people s control over such decisions. The development of a democratic intentionality is democratic intentionality claimed to be the key to reversing the current tendency to a negative dynamic. The paper also describes and discusses the historical development and present situation of literacy and democracy worldwide, their impact throughout human history and, at an individual level, the impact of literacy acquisition/development on the mind and brain. Introduction some section of the people and for the profit of an The present paper on the interaction between literacy even smaller section. For this reason, I hereafter use and democracy is an attempt to develop a conceptual democracy to denote its ideal meaning, and “pseudo- framework and a theory that accounts for the empirical democracy” to designate its actual implementation, evidence while also stimulating social and political where, like a pseudo-word falling short of meaning, change in support of literacy and democracy. Indeed, there is only the unfulfilled promise of democracy. almost 6000 years since the invention of writing, literacy, Democracy has never existed in any country. In our crucial means of production and expression, remains Athens, the great decisions were made by no more the privilege of a small minority of our conspecifics. It will than 10% of the population, the free male citizens; in be argued that pressuring governments to make literacy reality it was even less, given the low literacy of many accessible to all human beings is necessary to spark a of them (only children from rich families could be dynamic interaction between literacy expansion and instructed in school, Pébarthe, 2006), and the dominance social, economic and political democratisation all over of rich, literate tribunes. Examples of local democracy the world. occurred in the early Middle Ages within rural commu- Yet literacy and democracy are ill-defined words, with nities serving the nobility and the king, and more multiple, inconsistent meanings. I begin by examining recently in Paris with the self-organisation of the Paris “ ” “ democracy , which, although more familiar than lit- districts after the 14th of July 1789 (Genty, 1985) and ” eracy , is probably the most equivocal of the two. the Commune in 1871 (Ross, 2015). The latter represent the most crucial feature of democracy: “power to the people”. Democracy and pseudo-democracy Democracy is understood to mean free elections for The word “democracy”, from the Greek “demos” (people) political functions. The problem is that the choice is + “kratus” (rule, strength), was imported to English in the not free. It is restricted in four important ways. eighteenth century via the fourteenth century French First, there are strong constraints on electoral rights: word “démocratie”. It designates, according to an many people cannot take part as they are not citizens, optimistic political definition, the “government of the although they live and work in the territory; and in people for the people and by the people” (D. Webster, most countries, citizens can only be candidates if they A. Lincoln) or, according to my understanding of contem- belong to a party. Second, “particracy” dominates politi- porary “democracies”, the attribution of the right to cal life: The parties are hierarchical and centralised organ- govern all the people to a group of individuals, by isations in which professional politicians pursue their own CONTACT José Morais [email protected] © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2 J. MORAIS interests and those of economic groups. Third, the known other options were available” (p. 147). If this manipulation of information by a mass media dependent does not work, as a last resort against subversion of on wealthy individuals can easily determine electoral out- the installed plutocratic power, all pseudo-democracies, comes. In the UK in 1997, a secret agreement with like assumed dictatorial powers, avail of repressive R. Murdoch, owner of The Sun, allowed Tony Blair to be forces to maintain the system: the police and the “elected” against John Major (Ladd & Gens, 2009). In the armed forces. “Perhaps the most important key (of pre- USA as of 2010, corporations and millionaires are per- served power) is that governments typically have a mon- mitted by the Supreme Court to invest unlimited sums opoly on organized violence” (Searle, 2007, p. 96). of money in the campaigns of candidates they support Indeed, whenever pseudo-democracy is in danger, (Jorion, 2013, p. 72). Finally, to guarantee the perfect func- these services are called upon. When the Parisian stu- tioning of these mechanisms, a large section of society is dents radicalised their movement in May 1968, de maintained in a state of no or low literacy, which prevents Gaulle first used the police. Then, he visited the French them from processing the information necessary to par- Army located in West Germany as a clear sign that, if ticipate freely (that is, from a position of complete under- necessary, he was prepared to give it the order to act. standing) in the election of their representatives. The To understand the current wide acceptance and valor- double myth that elections are free and that free elections isation of what are merely pseudo-democratic insti- make a democracy is maintained by the dominant tutions, it is necessary to take into account the history wealthy (and literate) portion of the society. of political ideas and the efforts of the West, since the What happens after elections? Who determines the end of the Last World War, to base democracy solely policies: the average-earning citizen or the economic on the two pillars of “free” elections and “human elites and interest groups? The analysis of a USA survey rights”, the utmost of universal values. Having already of public responses to a favour/oppose question about commented on “free” elections, one sentence will each of 1779 proposed policies between 1981 and suffice on human rights. It is indeed crucial to recognise 2002 (Gilens & Page, 2014) showed that the general that humans have rights, but one of them is not to be public had a near zero independent influence on policy humiliated by declarations known by everybody, includ- change. In contrast, both economic elites and organised ing those who make them, to be contradicted by the real interests groups had a substantial impact. Cases in which facts. the “average voter” and the elites and organised groups made the same choice could be due in part to the “con- How the hate of democracy turned into siderable effort (of the latter) to shape opinion”. Accord- “democracy” love ing to the authors, “the majority does not rule (…), when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, Today only historians and a few others know that the they generally do not get it”. fathers of North-American independence and the main The discrepancy between the average citizen’s policy ideologists of the French Revolution were anti-demo- choices and those actually made by governments can crats. In their view, democracy corresponded to direct exist because there is no popular control, either of democracy, the most horrible system, because the representatives’ actions or of governments’ actions. masses are ignorant, irrational and violent. John Adams Rosanvallon (2015) argues that, from the ninetieth wrote that democracy is arbitrary, tyrannical, cruel, that century to the present, there has been a tremendous the people cannot act, judge, or think (letter from displacement of power distribution, namely from legis- 1807; in Adams, 1972). According to Thomas Jefferson, lative to executive power. The executive power does the main writer of the Declaration of Independence not execute; in fact it governs. Both the parties and and the third USA President, the government must be representatives have become machines or bodies to the privilege of a talented and virtuous “natural” aristoc- support a personalised government power, totally out racy (letter from 1813; in Wilstach, 1925). As Furet and of the people’s control. Halévi (1989) reported, Barnave, deputy at the first As argued by Searle (2010), there is a “background” French National assembly said in 1791 that democracy power, an ensemble of social pressures over individuals represents what is more odious, subversive and that is largely unconscious and that, by modelling their harmful for the people itself; and Sieyès, arguing that beliefs, may lead them to behave against their desires, the people are unable to govern themselves, claimed including accepting to die for their country.