I have often thought of religion as a thing that limits literacy, based on certain religions/sects not believing in the education of women, religious censorship (Delpit’s Amish article), privatized education plans (banned books), the use of the Latin bible as a tool of oppression by the Catholic Church (of the poor, in the past), etc. While I understand most of these things and generalization or no longer relevant, I still have some personal prejudices.
In Janet Duitsman Corneilus’Â article “When I Can Read My Title Clear”, I was really struck by how liberating reading the Bible was for African Americans during slavery and immediately after, and yet it seemed to be a double-edged sword. Yes, literacy was able to exalt African Americans into positions of power and respect (seen in the first example of Thomas Johnson), but it also made them a target for racial violence, because educated Blacks were the most dangerous. Slaves who learned to read had a greater chance of escaping and helping others, yet they were most at risk for death, or being sent deeper south (there are many horrific examples of punishments of pages 65-66). While I think the article clearly has a strong and positive relationship between religion and literacy, I wonder if you would agree? I think that slavery is a specific and awful situation in which any source of comfort and literacy is a positive thing, but in general, do you think that religion (modern or past) encourages literacy or hinders it?
I think that religion can be a powerful motivating tool in regards to literacy. Most people want to believe that they will go into heaven (or whatever they believe to be the positive afterlife) when they die, so this tends to push people into desiring literacy if only to read what they can do to get to this place. However, there are many instances throughout history in which we see religion persecuting literacy and doing everything in its power to keep people ignorant about other books and other forms of religion. Therefore, I would say that religion can be good for literacy to an extent. There are definite benefits toward literacy that can be had by religion, but literacy can also easily be squashed by an overzealous religion that just wants its followers to obey orders and not question anything.
It is interesting that you consider Literacy and Religion. I’m sure Val could really help elaborate on this topic more, but I also have some knowledge on this issue. You see, originally the Bible was only available in Latin, which meant it was only able to be read by the priests and not by the common people. Eventually this changed when Martin Luther translated the bible into German so that people could read what they were being preached. This changed a lot. Before, the Bible was unreadable and thus it allowed the priests to have absolute power and fall into corruption. However, Martin Luther’s translation caused the Bible to become widely read. Basically, this proves that religion caused an increase in literacy once it was available! So yes, it isn’t unusual that people in plight would look towards religion for hope and in the process learn to read and interpret their religious texts.
In modern times, religions encourage literacy. Instead of religious leaders like priests and pastors and rabbi’s being seen as translators of God’s will, it’s up to the individual to engage religious writings and come to their own conclusions. Religious leaders serve as guides, but it’s more acceptable for people to make their decisions based on how they interpret texts.
It has a lot to do with the history of printing. Bibles being written in Latin wasn’t the only limiting factor in being able to read them–until moveable type, Bibles (and all books) were extremely expensive. A church may have had one copy of the Bible for the priest and his affiliates to share among themselves, forget about the congregation. Most bibles were kept under lock and key because of their strict monetary value.
Since religious texts are widely available, it doesn’t seem as reasonable to take a religious leader’s word for it. If the only the way you could engage with the text was through mass on Sunday, you’d probably be more inclined to trust the word of someone trained and constantly exploring doctrine to explain it to you.
When it’s available to you at all times, the responsibility is shared. A priest no longer serves as a bridge between God and man, he did so because he interpreted scripture, but now availability of these writings, in multiple languages and printed forms, allows everyone to forge their own relationship to their chosen deity, an opportunity that necessitates being literate in both language itself, but also in one’s chosen dogma.