President's Page

Phi Kappa Phi Forum, Winter 2005 by Ferlazzo, Paul J

In July 2004, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) issued a report that measured an important aspect of the intellectual life of the American public. The report, Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America, documents a decline in the commitment to literary reading from 1982 to 2002.

It is important to note that the NEA sponsored this report, rather than another agency. If the Department of Education, for example, had issued the report, no doubt the subject would be basic literacy.

Basic literacy is, of course, a serious problem in the United States, and much work needs to be done. Numerous reports document our falling level of literacy. Organizations such as ProEiteracy Worldwide, Literacy USA, and Phi Kappa Phi have contributed talent and resources to working on the problem of improving basic literacy. (Information about the Phi Kappa Phi Eiteracy Grants program is available at www.phikappaphi.org. See also the Spring 2004 issue of the Phi Kappa Phi Forum devoted to literacy.)

The NEA report, however, assumes basic literacy. It aims to measure not the ability to read and understand basic information, but to document the level of appreciation for literature. The report does not say that reading basic information is at risk; it asserts that reading literature is at risk.

According to NEA Chairman Dana Gioia, "This report documents a national crisis. Reading develops a capacity for focused attention and imaginative growth that enriches both private and public life. The decline in reading among every segment of the adult population reflects a general collapse in advanced literacy. To lose this human capacity - and all the diverse benefits it fosters - impoverishes both cultural and civic life."

What are the "diverse benefits" of literary reading that Gioia refers to? The report documents that readers are more likely to be involved in cultural and volunteer activities than nonreaders. As an example, the report cites that readers are two-and-a-half times more likely to volunteer or perform charity work in the community than nonreaders.

Although it is useful to focus a national conversation on advanced literacy and the added civic and cultural benefits, the report has a number of unsatisfying aspects. To name a few:

* The 17,000 adults who participated in the survey that formed the basis of the report's conclusions were asked if they had read novels, short stories, poetry, or plays in the past year not required for work or school. Why should the reading of literary works in leisure time be privileged? The aesthetic response to literature is as valid in a classroom setting or work environment as in an easy chair at home. College-age respondents (eighteen to twenty-four), who read in their literature classes, for example, were therefore unnecessarily discounted. Yet, their required reading forms the all-important foundation for the aesthetic practice of reading throughout their lives. I understand the need to measure free choice as an element in the study, but students have freely chosen to participate in the world of advanced literacy by seeking a higher education.

* The report makes no attempt to describe the characteristics of literary reading or to establish a hierarchy among the broad range of material available under the category of literature. Within the parameters of the report, the reading of any novel counts, whether written by Henry James or Jacqueline Susann, and the reading of any poetry counts, whether written by John Milton or Hallmark. These vastly different reading experiences are all permitted to qualify as "literary reading." Equating such works surely was not the intention of the NEA, but it is a functional limitation of its method.

* The report also makes an unexplained criticism that electronic media are somehow to blame. The report states that the new media have fostered habits of mind that counter the skills needed for literary reading. If this is true, the report needs to prove it. One might easily counter that the skills needed for the new media are considerably intellectual, though different, and not necessarily antithetical. The rich immediacy of electronic media with its demand for interactivity, heightened response, and expanded consciousness has an important place in our expanding culture.

Reading At Risk is the beginning of an important public conversation. Let it not be the end. I encourage Phi Kappa Phi members to join in the conversation at whatever level is appropriate for them. The report is available online at http://arts.endow. gov/pub/ReadingAtRisk.pdf.

Paul J. Ferlazzo

National President of The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi

Paul J. Ferlazzo, PhD, is a professor of English at Northern Arizona University. He can be reached atpaul.ferlazzo@nau.edu.