Reading and not reading without guilt
Charles Bazerman (bazerman who-is-at humanitas.ucsb.edu)
Sat, 16 Dec 1995 09:07:54 -0800 (PST)
Rosa Montes ends with a return to the undercurrent of guilt people
express for not reading freely, widely, spontaneously, not under duress,
etc. The other side of this is the guilt others feel when they are
clearly reading for a specific purpose, obligation, need. The buying of
books and feeling guilty for not reading them until there is specific
need or not reading them ever is a further refinement of this guilt.
I do my share of reading and not reading and more than my share
of wishful book buying. I also share all the variants of guilt
associated with this, plus some secret variants not ready to be brought
to light. However, I would like to try to turn the issue on its head.
It seems that all these guilts are based on certain assumptions we
have about virtuous reading and idealized literacy. Why do some reading
and reading-related behaviours seem more tainted while others seem more
noble? What are these assumptions and where do they come from? From
Reformation Bible-Reading ideology or the Talmudic virtue of study? From
nineteenth century constructions of Renaissance learning or the moral
values of literature? From ambivalence about our professional lives?
>From generational attitudes about newer forms of communication? From some
beliefs about the value of the amateur? From the deeply internalized
experience that occurs in reading that makes us want to associate it with
individualistic notions of autonomy?
The ideology of reading--there is something here.
Chuck