Trent mentions the term “Falstaffian” as his favorite example and, quite correctly, points out that a familiarity with Shakespeare’s Henry IV plays is required to fully understand the term. Using that word illustrates my point exactly: when was the last time you used, read anyone else use, or encountered anyone else using the word Falstaffian?

I never have, unless it was during my class in community college where we covered those plays and that was quite some time ago. I’m familiar with that term and it just so happens that the Henry plays are history plays of Shakespeare’s that I can tolerate (though the Richard plays are far more interesting).

Not once have I been at a loss to describe someone and realize now that Falstaffian was the perfect word. Never in a conversation has that word come up. And I run around in English-major circles, the very type of people prone to dropping such a term at a dinner party or staff lunch. Nope. Never heard it. To push matters further, aside from six5guy’s blog entry, I don’t recall ever seeing that word in print (other than perhaps during my aforementioned community college course).

Evolve Or Die

Does all this mean that Falstaffian has fallen out of cultural literacy norms? Is that a suggestion that cultural literacy develops over time? Does cultural literacy accrue just like the English language? Do some words and/or definitions fade away entirely, becoming archaic enough that they are the equivalent of deadwood, needing to be trimmed back?

Hirsch’s dictionary is a nice idea, but it shouldn’t shine as an indelible reference. In the same way that allusions to things like Julius Caesar have faded (though there is a nice reference to it in a recent Daredevil storyline), there comes a time when the old paradigm needs to die, with new media considered and given the value it deserves. Things like Guantanamo Bay, Axis of evil, and even Desert Storm are more relevant than the need to know an obscure reference to a piece from the classic canon of DOWG literature. Scouring through Hirsch’s book, that’s the bulk of his references, exactly the old paradigm I suggest needs to lie down to long slumber.

Much like the dictionary we have all come to know and love, a cultural literacy dictionary should have new material every year and should make some effort to weed out things no longer in common usage. What is the value of a dictionary from 1806 in this modern age? Certainly, there is some value in it, but not such that it should necessarily displace all the important things that have happened in the last 200 years.

Hirsch’s book is a nice OED, but it is by no means a reference work for the education system, as was Hirsch’s original intent.Similar Posts:

• Definitions: Cultural Literacy Redefined
• More Definitions: Cultural Literacy Redefined
• Use V. Value: Cultural Literacy Redefined
• Preface: Cultural Literacy Redefined
• Explosions In Word Clouds

What does it mean to be culturally literate today, and is such literacy useful, particularly in the absorption of information? (source)

The usefulness of cultural literacy depends on whose definition or classifications of cultural literacy we refer to and the culture under question. Pop culture in society at large contains a different cultural literacy than that required for the student culture on my campus.

Hirsch’s ideas about cultural literacy are not bloody useful to my students at all. Understanding references to many other things present far more useful possibilities:

Kobe Bryant

(“Dude, whatever you do this weekend, don’t pull a Kobe!”)

ethnic heritage figures

(the importance of understanding their personal background)

pop music lyrics and artists

(that Peaches song from Lost In Translation as an appropriate symbol of Siddhartha’s involvement with Kamala)

social networking sites

(while learning how to use a new site: “It’s another MySpace”; while on vacation: “That’s a total MySpace picture!”)

any number of local events

(students staged a walkout last year and have already refered mockingly to those students who were uninformed about the reasons behind the walkout)

For my students to go through the reading necessary to make sense out of the idea that The Scarlet Letter is my albatross is not useful nor is it worth their time. This is especially true in light of the fact that I should be a better judge of my audience than to use that phrasing when addressing a group of people who have never heard the name Coleridge, let alone are familiar enough with his work to get the allusion (unless they happen to be Iron Maiden fans).

It also depends on what information we absorb.

Is It Valuable?

Today’s definition of cultural literacy involves more than Hirsch originally penned. It involves a combination of events, literature, locations, and plain old zeitgeist. The dominant culture in America reads very little literature. Things like The New Yorker and classic British authors are geared toward specialized audiences, not the dominant culture. As far as reading habits go, the dominant culture appears rapidly developing into internet readers, those who turn to Google News for information consumption and YouTube for entertainment, MySpace for personal connections and Hotmail for correspondence. Glances at blog creation stats, a collection of Pew survey results, and Technorati go a long way to substantiate this opinion of mine.

With that kind of reading so popular, where’s the value in understanding a T.S. Eliot allusion if none are made? Further, what’s the value in understanding such an allusion if all it does is add a slight shade of complexity to the message? If the ideas are comprehensable without understanding the allusion, doesn’t that render the allusion useless to some degree?

The title of six5guy’s entry, “The value of cultural literacy,” hints at the argument behind both his writing and my writing, to which he (in part) responded. That Trent read Hirsch’s book on cultural literacy online and makes ready reference to Wikipedia present a component of cultural literacy missing from the discussion so far. It’s something that even Hirsch, in his explanation of the theory behind his dictionary, omits.

Friday: An Unfortunate TruthSimilar Posts:

• More Definitions: Cultural Literacy Redefined
• Definitions: Cultural Literacy Redefined
• An Unfortunate Truth: Cultural Literacy Redefined
• Reading As Writers
• Reading Should Be A Pleasure

Pop Media As Cultural Literacy

This type of background understanding is used more commonly than an understanding of references to canonical literature or ancient world history events. Perhaps references made during entertainment “news” segments represent American culture at large and hold some kind of key to modern cultural literacy.

As meaningless as you may think this type of information is, that’s exactly how a majority of teenagers (and perhaps even a majority of the nation) feels about E.D. Hirsch’s conception of cultural literacy. And at least pop media cultural literacy provides some immediate use; just about every television program makes at least one of these types of references, where a student may wait weeks or months in order to bring an understanding of Shakespeare to bear on modern events.

What’s Left Behind

Reaching yet another component left out of the discussion, the society we live in today is radically different than even 10 years ago. As technology becomes a more prominent feature, schools that want to prepare teenagers for life in any career field need to promote familiarity with computer systems.

As society moves in new directions, how much of the old culture is necessary to hang on to in order to make sense out of the world? In a similar way that an understanding of conduct required around royalty was a necessary skill that’s disappeared (specifically in America, but elsewhere as well), is it necessary that a lawyer understand your reference to Lord of the Flies when describing court proceedings? Is it necessary for your dentist to acknowledge your Canterbury Tales reference when telling about last weekend’s social event?

Culture And Literacy?

I always assume that the general purpose of cultural literacy is to allow for maximum comprehension of ideas contained within that culture (at least) and the whole world (at most). The cultural literacy of one population is almost necessarily different than another.

Further muddying the waters, the definition of “culture” and “literacy” popped up from time to time in my thinking on this issue.

With the term cultural literacy, are we speaking of America, which has a very different culture than that of, say, Japan? The state of California, which has a very different culture than that of, say, Michigan? The city of Berkeley, which has a very different culture than that of, say, Beverly Hills? And are we speaking of knowledge that’s necessary to understand common allusions? Obscure allusions? Allusions that were made 50 years ago during someone’s privileged attendance at Harvard or Yale?

Culture, to me, means the body of society immediately involved. My students form a society on campus, as do the teachers, but those are two completely different societies. Do we each have our own cultural literacy? Certainly the reference to Skinner wouldn’t go unnoticed by a teacher, to be considered a put down rather than a compliment. That same reference, if made to my students, would evoke images of the principal on The Simpsons (coincidentally, that’s exactly the reason the show is so brilliant) and may not be met with the same kind of scorn.

Literacy in this case, far more allusive a term to pin down, means knowledge needed to get by and make sense out of the majority of conversations you’ll find yourself in and the majority of reading you’ll do. As such, that literacy is different for science majors, who likely need to be able to understand references to both Alfred Wallace and Stephen Hawking, and auto mechanics, who need to be well versed in Chilton and the history of Mopar. Neither is worse off than the other, but failure to recognize that essential difference is a failure to understand the implications of cultural literacy.

I do not know who Dmitri Mendeleev is or Maxwell’s equations. Both of these are listed by Hirsch as necessary for cultural literacy (they are in the “Physical Science and Mathematics” chapter). Do I really need to? Are Mendeleev and Maxwell truly part of a “common cultural knowledge“?

Is there a touch of the elite about how Hirsch has decided to define this term? Is it time to create an update that takes into account certain factors that Hirsch has overlooked (like the fact that DOWG literature isn’t good literature in and of itself; that things don’t need to be known simply because they were taught “in the good old days, when an education used to mean something”)? To say that Whitman is worth teaching simply because it’s Whitman is no reason. Likewise with much of what Hirsch lists. Where’s the use and value? For what culture and what literacy?

Monday: Use V. ValueSimilar Posts:

• Use V. Value: Cultural Literacy Redefined
• Definitions: Cultural Literacy Redefined
• An Unfortunate Truth: Cultural Literacy Redefined
• Preface: Cultural Literacy Redefined
• Required And Allowed Reading

It’s 2006. If you don’t know the term “dot com,” you are not culturally literate. If you don’t know the term “Falstaffian,” I think you might be ok. Both terms require some background knowledge to fully appreciate, but one is clearly more relevant than the other. Isn’t it?

On six5guy.com, a Web site acting as a filter in an information saturated world, Trent makes some interesting points about cultural literacy: the need for it, the depth of required knowledge, and the point of diminishing returns. It’s a post that really got me thinking about the whole idea of cultural literacy.

That’s a term I’ve kicked around in these entries from time to time and that influences my daily teaching in one way or another. But the question always resurfaces: am I presenting to my students information that is either useful or valuable for them? Is Faulkner useful or valuable simply because it’s Faulkner? Teachers often teach material simply because it’s available to them. You all know that material because it’s what your teachers taught you in high school, lo so many years ago. Just because it was taught in the past, does that make it useful or valuable now?

Useful Or Valuable?

At first, distinguishing between “use” and “value” may appear to be a semantic issue not worth squabbling over. Staring at an early version of this post, the clear realization hit me that the two terms are not interchangeable here.

What is the use of cultural literacy? What is the value of it? One question asks how the knowledge can be applied. The other asks why it’s worth doing so.

Of course, this all depends on the application of such literacy. In an academic setting, the setting in which Hirsch originally intended cultural literacy to be propagated, Hirsch’s cultural literacy may be dreadfully useful. Unless you’re in engineering (or art or business or physical education or anything else other than English and social studies), in which case the majority of it might be dreadfully dull.

However, unless the application is preparing for some further stage in life beyond the immediate assignment, it’s not very valuable no matter what culture you’re in. The more long range the application of the knowledge, the more valuable it is. Knowledge for knowledge sake isn’t a valuable thing necessarily.

Should you know a lot about a few things or a little about a lot of things? I’d bet your answer to that question would go a long way in determining the value of cultural literacy for you.

There’s a piece about “quality of life” that I can’t figure a way to factor into all this, though. I am certainly a big believer in knowing more rather than less. I’m also a big believer in the idea that the more understanding about the world a person has, the more sense the world makes and the more pleasing it is to live in this world. It’s hard to argue for education that simply makes one more well rounded, but it’s so necessary. In no small part, that’s also a function of the value of cultural literacy, those added dimensions and depth to an understanding of the world.

Because an understanding of John Steinbeck might add to a trip through Salinas, is that enough of a reason to teach him, on the off chance that it just might enlighten you on some random road trip later in life? And if you never take that trip to California or the Salinas area, is reading John Steinbeck (I’m thinking of Cannery Row here) a complete waste of your time?

Friday: More DefinitionsSimilar Posts:

• More Definitions: Cultural Literacy Redefined
• Use V. Value: Cultural Literacy Redefined
• An Unfortunate Truth: Cultural Literacy Redefined
• Refuse To Spoil: Irrelevance Is Best, Part 5
• Read Away Selfishness: Irrelevance Is Best, Part 2

Holding the slightly crumpled piece of paper, I felt unsure and a little wary. Furled brow and a concentrated stare didn’t make things any clearer. I didn’t dare turn the paper sideways, a silly literal effort to get a metaphoric “different view” of the writing. The writing, while not horrible, contained terms standing out as either misspelled or invented, blocking the path between me and perfect comprehension.

It was my first year of teaching, during a hot April day in a stifling portable classroom. The smell of those rooms, and they all smell the same way, mixes equal parts plywood dust and plaster odor. Walking past an open door takes me back all those years, the range of emotions I felt sitting in the room late, each day frantically planning for the next. I hope I never have one of those rooms again, for fear that those feelings of inadequacy and confusion will sidle up for a reunion with me.

On that day, a part of me foolish enough to avoid confrontation with the author to ask for clarification reigned; I wanted to send a message that I knew what was going on, that I was both a hip and informed reader. The author, Jeremy, one of my “projects” that year, left me hoping each day that he would not only show up to class but also would be accompanied by his completed homework.

My wish was granted in the form of this paper, twisted against me in a cold irony. I had his completed homework, but I couldn’t make sense of his point to truly evaluate it.

Finally, with a heavy internal sigh, I called him over to my desk. A shock of blonde hair and freckles stood up and swaggered over to the chair I pulled out for him, an everlasting smile on his face, an expression that he brought to any discussion.

During the short and painless conversation, he casually explained the various slang terms and references in that slightly crumpled piece of paper I held. Nearby students nodded their heads as he answered my questions, all of them confirming their common knowledge. Among the terms learned that day, “get with” means something slightly different than “hit it,” which is what Romeo and Juliet did on the night of their doomed wedding. In fact, there’s a hierarchy of sexual slang. “Scrill” is money and is the reason behind almost all decisions people make. I recall a reference to a Smashing Pumpkins song, a popular band at the time that’s since broken up and that never appealed to my musical sensibilities too much.

For all my years of college education and my age and my status as teacher in the classroom, I didn’t know what the students all around me understood so deeply that they didn’t even think to clarify. Was I culturaly literate?

On Monday: DefinitionsSimilar Posts:

• Definitions: Cultural Literacy Redefined
• An Unfortunate Truth: Cultural Literacy Redefined
• Day One
• Use V. Value: Cultural Literacy Redefined
• More Definitions: Cultural Literacy Redefined