>It depends on context. My context is political, with a focus on the great
>difficulty that so many have in expressing their thoughts in writing. There
>has been some serious research in this, some of it summarized and analyzed
>in Patricia A Dunn, _Learning Re-Abled_. Everyone (I hope) is familiar with
>that difficulty called "dyslexia."
>
Yes, it is well documented that some have difficulty expressing thoughts
in writing and have good oral communication skills. It is also well
documented that others have substantial difficulties expressing
themselves verbally and have good writing skills. Given that political
action requires the engagement with both types of people and many
inbetween, why is oral communication more crucial to political action?
>[snippage]
>
>My core objection then is not to print culture as such -- in my initial post
>I went out of my way to drag in references to print culture (Milton, Pope,
>Swift, Pound). Access to such culture ought to be more widespread than it
>is. My objection is the imposition of the standards of standard literacy
>upon the whole population of students in the schools both inflicts pointless
>pain and, in fact, seriously distorts the lives, the thinking, of those who
>cannot more or less spontaneously, develop the skills demanded. I would
>suggest that those who write well at the age of 21 for the most part are
>those who wrote well at the age of 8.
>
>Re-read the FHP paper: if that were to dominate a political movement, the
>vast majority of the population would be excluded from participation in left
>political discussion. And that is precisely what Jodi Dean clearly wants:
>that political decisions be made by experts ( the super-literate), while the
>masses simply fall into line behind them.
>
>
I understand the concern about the "intellectual vanguard", but I still
don't see the connection to writing and speaking. The intellectuals
have lectures, symposia, conferences, etc. in which they bloviate
endlessly (and I do mean endlessly!). That verbal communication both
reflects and sustains the status of these intellectuals and their
dubious political agenda. And written communication is not simply and
exclusively a tool of these intellectuals; it is also a social practice
that disrupts their presumed authority and encourages the consideration
of other political perspectives. (I can't resist noting that your own
post illustrates this point!)
For me, a political movement engages people with different interests and skills, and we figure out as we go along how people can use their interests and skills to support the work. If we have people in the movement who are adept verbal communicators, there is plenty of work for them to do (speeches, interviews, assemblies). The same is true of people with good writing skills (blog posts, tweets, pamphlets), . Again, even in a political movement, I don't understand why we should valorize one form of communication over the other.
Miles