Literacy and illiteracy, its relational other: A key topic for collaboration between psychology and anthropology

IF 1.3 4区 社会学 Q3 ANTHROPOLOGY
Ethos Pub Date : 2025-06-04 DOI:10.1111/etho.70015
Erdmute Alber, Carlos Kölbl
{"title":"Literacy and illiteracy, its relational other: A key topic for collaboration between psychology and anthropology","authors":"Erdmute Alber,&nbsp;Carlos Kölbl","doi":"10.1111/etho.70015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Collaborative work between anthropology and psychology on literacy and particularly on illiteracy helps to rethink general disciplinary backgrounds, concepts, and complex empirical phenomena in the field of (il)literacy. Since the formational period of the social sciences, the concept of literacy has been key to the self-understandings of anthropology and psychology. However, it was long neglected in empirical research. Nonetheless, implicit and explicit assumptions about the role, history, and distinctiveness of writing systems and their presence or absence in various societies were central to disciplinary understandings of societies, individuals, and humanity. To this day, literacy and especially its relational other—illiteracy—have not received the attention they deserve from either empirical or conceptual research. This article begins with their histories in anthropology and psychology and argues that illiteracy, in particular, has been neglected in their debates. It then offers a framework for literacizing and illiteracizing, conceptualizes both illiteracy and literacy as multiple and relational phenomena, and discusses methodologies and preliminary results from our collaborative research project on processes of literacizing and illiteracizing in urban literate environments in Benin and Bolivia. It concludes with a discussion of the potential of research on literacy and illiteracy as a model for transdisciplinary work, especially a more intensive collaboration between our disciplines.</p>","PeriodicalId":51532,"journal":{"name":"Ethos","volume":"53 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/etho.70015","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethos","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/etho.70015","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Collaborative work between anthropology and psychology on literacy and particularly on illiteracy helps to rethink general disciplinary backgrounds, concepts, and complex empirical phenomena in the field of (il)literacy. Since the formational period of the social sciences, the concept of literacy has been key to the self-understandings of anthropology and psychology. However, it was long neglected in empirical research. Nonetheless, implicit and explicit assumptions about the role, history, and distinctiveness of writing systems and their presence or absence in various societies were central to disciplinary understandings of societies, individuals, and humanity. To this day, literacy and especially its relational other—illiteracy—have not received the attention they deserve from either empirical or conceptual research. This article begins with their histories in anthropology and psychology and argues that illiteracy, in particular, has been neglected in their debates. It then offers a framework for literacizing and illiteracizing, conceptualizes both illiteracy and literacy as multiple and relational phenomena, and discusses methodologies and preliminary results from our collaborative research project on processes of literacizing and illiteracizing in urban literate environments in Benin and Bolivia. It concludes with a discussion of the potential of research on literacy and illiteracy as a model for transdisciplinary work, especially a more intensive collaboration between our disciplines.

Abstract Image

扫盲与文盲的关系:心理学与人类学合作的重要课题
人类学和心理学在读写能力,特别是文盲方面的合作有助于重新思考读写能力领域的一般学科背景、概念和复杂的经验现象。自社会科学形成时期以来,识字概念一直是人类学和心理学自我认识的关键。然而,长期以来在实证研究中被忽视。尽管如此,关于文字系统的作用、历史和独特性以及它们在不同社会中的存在或不存在的隐性和显性假设,是对社会、个人和人类的学科理解的核心。直到今天,识字,尤其是与之相关的他者——文盲——还没有得到实证研究或概念研究应有的重视。这篇文章从他们在人类学和心理学方面的历史开始,并认为文盲问题在他们的辩论中被忽视了。然后,它提供了一个识字和文盲的框架,将文盲和扫盲概念化为多重和相关的现象,并讨论了我们在贝宁和玻利维亚城市识字环境中扫盲和文盲过程的合作研究项目的方法和初步结果。报告最后讨论了扫盲和文盲研究作为跨学科工作模式的潜力,特别是我们学科之间更深入的合作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ethos
Ethos Multiple-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Ethos is an interdisciplinary and international quarterly journal devoted to scholarly articles dealing with the interrelationships between the individual and the sociocultural milieu, between the psychological disciplines and the social disciplines. The journal publishes work from a wide spectrum of research perspectives. Recent issues, for example, include papers on religion and ritual, medical practice, child development, family relationships, interactional dynamics, history and subjectivity, feminist approaches, emotion, cognitive modeling and cultural belief systems. Methodologies range from analyses of language and discourse, to ethnographic and historical interpretations, to experimental treatments and cross-cultural comparisons.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信