Debate: On Literacy

Image source here

See also:

• James Marriott's original essay
• Socialism and the post-literate society
• Post-literacy: the beam in our own eyes
• Focus on text is misplaced
• Print is not just another medium
• Isolated "content consumption" vs deep reading and discussing
• Government by enlightened litterateurs?

I agree with Ruth Cashman's criticism ("Isolated 'content consumption' vs. deep reading and discussion", Solidarity 770, 1 July 2026) of the historical inaccuracies and excessive claims in James Marriott's article "The dawn of the post-literate society".

High levels of reading in a society don't automatically correlate with democracy or rational action. Germany had a high literacy rate when it became a dictatorship. He is also imprecise on whether he is actually discussing literacy or other issues relating to problems with concentration or focus and lack of study in depth.

I want to address some things Marriott said about literacy specifically. From his article:

"To produce his great work Kant had to write down his ideas, scratch them out, think about them, refine them and then rework them over many years so they added up into a persuasive and logical whole. To properly understand the book you have to be able to have it in front of you so you can re-read bits you don't understand, check logical connections and meditate on important passages until you really take them in. This kind of advanced thinking is inseparable from reading and writing."

Marriott asserts this claim but offers no proof of it. Regarding reading, there have been various studies on audiobooks vs books, listening vs reading, and they say there is no significant difference and you understand just fine by listening. Recorded lectures, radio plays, films, documentaries and so on are all things people use for serious study.

The physical act of writing can be a crucial part of the process of creation. Eugene O'Neill tried to dictate plays when he could no longer physically write, but found he couldn't work like that. However, it is wrong to say that if you cannot physically write you cannot engage in advanced thinking. I have a disability which makes both reading and writing difficult sometimes. I'm writing this letter using voice software. It's free voice software, I can't use it on my phone, and it's not as good as the more costly versions. Using other methods to write has definite disadvantages, and I find it frustrating compared to writing directly. But it's much better than not having access to any alternative to writing. All methods of communication are expressed to an extent through the body: writing, speaking, dancing and painting all involve you acting physically. Is Marriott saying that somebody who can't read, who is blind, say, can't do advanced thinking?

The problem with alternative tools is not that people use them, it's that a lot of people don't have access to them. Many writers in the past have dictated their work. The person taking dictation might be a paid secretary, or the writer's wife, usually somebody of a lower status than the person whose thoughts are being written down. Most people who were not of a high social status, whether they could not write through disability or illiteracy, would not be able to do this, as they would not have the resources to have someone transcribe their ideas. Modern technology can help a lot here but there is still a very uneven amount of access to it. Library collections of audiobooks are a fantastic resource but are not nearly as extensive as the written book collections.

Marriott's article pays little attention to the actual issue of literacy. In the UK the number of adults who have very poor literacy is 6.6 million, or 18%. When I lived in another country, a road sweeper in my union branch had not been able to read when he joined, and he had learned in the union. I have been involved in struggles alongside people who couldn't read many times in tenants' unions. I would bet some money that Marriott has never been in a union branch with a road sweeper who couldn't read, and has also not thought much about road sweepers who can't read. Funding for adult literacy has been badly cut, along with library closures that Ruth brought up. There is also a profound issue that life for working-class people has got worse and we are having to spend more time engaged in survival: not only more hours at work but also more time trying to find or keep accommodation, access healthcare, access benefits, and provide care for others. People throughout history do read and study during conditions of material hardship; they are more likely to if they feel part of some kind of collective movement involving hope and change.

Addressing Daniel's argument about rebuilding a culture of deep literacy on the left (“Socialism and the Post-Literate Society”, Solidarity 746, 1 April 2026) I'm all in favour of this rebuilding. My issue is that a lot of people on the left who are fluent and confident with the written word are dismissive of anyone who is not. Most union branches and political organisations do not aim any of their political education at people who do not already have quite a high level of general education. Teaching an adult to read, like Eleanor Marx taught Will Thorne, requires quite a bit of time and effort. People point to these historical examples to say that working-class people in the past made the effort to learn. They did, and other people also made the effort to teach them. There is also a need to support people who can read but don't have confidence with some kinds of texts, whether this is collective study of pamphlets or writing motions for union meetings. A really meaningful culture of deep literacy needs to put effort into supporting people with less formal education and also with disability access needs. There are ways that text is an especially useful format (rereading, checking back, comparing two different texts are all much easier in text than in audio). The issue is that no medium is usable by everybody. Not everybody can read text, not everybody can hear audio, so we need to produce materials in as wide a range of media as possible.

Within the movement there is a lack of empathy and curiosity about other people's realities. Within a trade union context, for example, the structures for democratic participation—speaking in branch meetings, submitting motions and articles, going as a delegate to meetings and committees, reading minutes—are structures that some people are familiar with and comfortable operating in, and others are not. People don't support others to participate, then complain about people not participating. My experience is that people don't engage with why somebody is struggling with something; they are just dismissive. I asked my union for help with writing motions and got told that "people figure it out".

A lot of what would need to be done to enable wider participation is low-status, unglamorous hard work, and would involve listening to people and empathising with them. If comrades do want a culture of deep literacy in the movement, this will involve helping people with things that look easy and supporting people with difficulties that probably appear trivial or annoying to people who don't experience them.

The road sweeper union member that I mentioned joined the union and participated in militant strike action when he still couldn't read. He learned to read in the union branch after being involved for a while. Using other methods to help people communicate, whether technological methods like I'm using to write this, or things like reading aloud the agenda at the start of a meeting, don't stop people learning to read. They don't make people lazy. Written text, reading and writing, probably do have a unique function. Teaching people to read and write is crucial. However, people can and should be supported to participate in union democracy at whatever educational or literacy level they currently are. Helping people feel empowered and that they have agency is exactly the thing that has encouraged many people to learn to read.