ABSTRACT
Harvey Graff’s (1979) history of the “literacy myth” and Brian Street’s (1984) ethnographic case for an “ideological model” of literacy set the grounds for a three decade revision of the core premises of literacy education. The shapes and consequences of literacy are not universal. They depend on historical and cultural context: on political ideologies and disciplinary discourses, systems of governance, ownership and control of texts and information, and local functions and uses of literacy. Institutions like schools, religions, and media/Internet corporations provide selective sociohistorical scripts for its acquisition and use. These institutions stand in complex and contested relationships with the traditions and practices of vernacular and indigenous cultures and languages (Hornberger, 2002).
