For centuries, the view prevailed that literacy was a simple, learned cognitive skill. One learned to read and write just as one learned to make baskets, kick a ball, kill a deer, or build a fire. If you had mastered the skill, it was quite obvious. This view of literacy has come to be referred to as autonomous literacy (Street, B. 1985).

It was recognized that those who had mastered this skill could use the skill to advantage in terms of influence and prestige. However, this was considered a question of power relations, not one of literacy.

For at least two decades, there has been extensive debate in academic circles on the question of the relationship between Western civilization, development, and literacy.

Theorists like Jack Goody (1977, 1986) have argued that literacy is a primary determinant of technological advancement. In the strongest formulations of this viewpoint, literacy is seen as having a profound impact on the intellectual powers of individuals and societies. The individual who becomes literate undergoes a transformation not too different from that of the butterfly which is transformed from a crawling wormlike thing to a flying birdlike thing.

According to such theorists, literacy societies (that is, collectivities of literate individuals) have an immense intellectual and cognitive advantage and use this advantage to “develop” socially, politically, intellectually, politically, and militarily. Conversely, individuals and societies with limited or no literacy are largely condemned to simple and traditional lifestyles and cultural systems. In essence, “civilization” is based on literacy.

In the last two decades, the term literacy has come to be commonly used as a statement of, or measure of competence to do a given task or work in a given field. For example, people are said to be “computer literate” or “computer illiterate” depending on their ability to use a computer. Other areas of technical competence are treated in the same way.

A similar usage is that of workplace literacy. In modern industry, more and more demands are made on workers to understand and manipulate symbols and abstract ideas in the form of reports, instructions, graphs, and instrumentation. The viability of industry has come to depend upon a “literate workforce,” that is, a work force able to handle this “discourse” in an effective and efficient manner. Typically, such proficiency has required in-house training.

Yet another application of the notion of literacy as competence is in the field of educational assessment. In a given country or context, when one is asked to provide an assessment of “literacy rates,” one must make reference to some criterion for literacy. This is a statement or performance measure which serves as a yardstick for determining that a person is, or is not, literate.

What should the criterion level be? Should it vary from one country to another? Should it vary from one sector to another? In many Western countries, extensive nationwide assessments have been made using a series of criteria or literacy levels. Obviously, the level or criterion used will determine the resultant “literacy rates.”

In a recent study in the United States, for example, one criterion used was that of ability to perform a series of reading, comprehension, and logical tasks at the level of a university student. Those who did not perform at this level were labeled as “functionally illiterate.”

Some of the results of this study were picked up by the news media, but were poorly interpreted. As a result, it was reported that a massive part of the US population was functionally illiterate. Those without access to or knowledge of the underlying criterion misunderstood the results of this study to be saying that, for all practical purposes, this large segment of the US population could not read.

Brian Street (1985) makes a clear distinction between Brian Street autonomous and ideological notions of literacy. In his analysis, autonomous literacy refers primarily to literacy as a set of cognitive skills and abilities and their generic use.

In contrast, ideological literacy refers to the social conceptions and uses of literacy. In this view, literacy is a part of the defining framework of society. Literacy is what society does with literacy, and society is, to some extent, what literacy brings to it.

This is a constructivist or phenomenological perspective. A social system is defined in part by literacy, one of its constituent parts and subsystems.

The ideological view of literacy is meant to focus attention on the nature and function of literacy in a social system. Literacy is an integral feature of the system. Literacy is understood and used in myriad ways in the function of the social system. Literacy is a measure of social position, a metric of job eligibility, a tool for job performance, a device for exercising influence, and a medium for interpreting the world.

Yet another view of literacy is that of critical literacy. Advocates of critical literacy emphasize the empowering role that literacy can and should play in reshaping the world in which one lives and works.

More benign versions of critical literacy encourage new literates to use literacy as a means for political action. By gathering appropriate information, organizing, and defining specific objectives, literacy serves as a means of achieving desired ends. The literate person reflects on what is wrong in his or her world and uses the enabling power of literacy to change that world.

More radical notions of critical literacy equate literacy and activism. Reading is understanding the real world. Comprehending is constructing or reconstructing that world. Changing or redefining one's world is doing literacy.