Part 4: How do we make socially just futures?

The classroom, with all its limitations, remains a location of possibility. In that field of possibility we have the opportunity to labor for freedom, to demand of ourselves and our comrades, an openness of mind and heart that allows us to face reality even as we collectively imagine ways to move beyond boundaries, to transgress. This is education as the practice of freedom. 

— bell hooks | Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom, 207

In a recent post, “Why Culture May Be Our Most Powerful Lever for Progress,” Beatrice Erkers discusses hyper-entities. A concept developed by scientist Michael Nielsen, hyper-entities are an “​​imagined hypothetical future object or class of objects” (Nielsen). Examples of hyper-entities include human settlements on Mars, quantum computers, and AGI (Nielsen). These are all ideas that could become real entities in the future, but they don’t exist yet, and they take a long time to develop. Nonetheless, the potential of hyper-entities is exciting, something we rally around to make real, pouring our resources (human labor, money, and time) into. Some hyper-entities do become a reality, such as space exploration and the Internet. Some of these hyper-entities benefit society (public education), and some cause devastation (the atomic bomb). An aspect of hyper-entities is that they can be both beneficial and detrimental. For example, social media builds human connections across space and time at an exponential speed, but it also negatively impacts mental health. AGI is the hyper-entity of the moment. It doesn’t exist yet, still, its potential to solve some of the world's biggest crises is shaping “budgets, regulation, research agendas, and the careers of thousands” (Erkers). AGI’s potential benefits could be world-saving, but its detrimental risks could be world-ending. Either way, AGI has the potential to change the world. 

Navigating the complexity of hyper-entities and any other multifaceted ideas, systems, or objects requires the same skills as those developed through literacy. We must seek to understand the benefits and the risks, integrate those into our existing knowledge, critically discern all potential outcomes, and effectively inform our audience of our conclusions. As an example provided by the New London Group, economic and market-driven discourses need our close examination:

… we need to be aware of the danger that our words become co-opted by economically and market-driven discourses, no matter how contemporary and "post-capitalist" these may appear. The new fast capitalist literature stresses adaptation to constant change through thinking and speaking for oneself, critique and empowerment, innovation and creativity, technical and systems thinking, and learning how to learn. All of these ways of thinking and acting are carried by new and emerging discourses… [that] can be taken in two very different ways - as opening new educational and social possibilities, or as new systems of mind control or exploitation. (67)

Robinson also asserts that such a critical approach is necessary to navigate the disruption of generative AI. He argues that if we thoughtlessly embrace the hype of clever marketing campaigns, we could end up losing our authenticity and autonomy: “…AWT [automated writing technologies] like GPT-3 may leverage the appeal of efficiency and freedom… but the risk is that they may in fact progressively subdue the subject’s capacities for resistance” (128). Robinson cautions us against sacrificing our humanity, freedom, and environment for the sake of efficiency and ease, smoke and mirrors. 

As literacy scholars and educators, we have the responsibility to foster the development of critical literacy skills in our students. And we must also be willing to struggle through the work of discerning the many facets of complex issues ourselves. It is how we as a society can maintain our power over oppression. bell hooks wrote that “‘critical thinking’ was the primary element allowing the possibility of change… that without the capacity to think critically… none of us would be able to move forward, to change, to grow” (202). By practicing education-as-freedom, which requires a willingness to do the hard work, push boundaries, and “to transgress,” hooks believed that we have the power to actualize a socially just future. 

Thus, as part of our own critical literacy praxis, we need to approach disruptive technology with curiosity and openness, but we need to be responsible in how we do so. We must critically engage with the immediate and future implications of using disruptive technology so we can shape our relationship with it to be beneficial for society at large. Robinson’s “speculative proposition of a resistive digital writing pedagogy” offers a way of navigating the disruptions of generative AI. Robinson defines speculative propositions as “events-in-the-making” (126), a concept similar to hyper-entities in that they are still undeveloped and their potentialities are still not fully transparent. To resist a speculative proposition’s detrimental impacts, while determining its ethical use, we must engage in “critical conversations” about how these entities are currently and in the future reshaping literacy and society (Robinson 130). 

Furthering Robinson’s proposition, Warner presents a three-tiered framework for navigating generative AI: resist, renew, explore. By resisting generative AI, Warner argues that we must “consider the root values we’re trying to live by” (230). This consideration mirrors Griffin and James’ Responsible Use of Educational Tools Thinking Framework, which reinforces “the value of the productive struggle in conjunction with… the conscious and responsible use of educational tools” (Griffin and James 13). Through renewal, Warner proposes that we return to valuing the process, rather than the result, of writing (246), again echoing Giffin and James’ opposition to a “product-focused approach” (Griffin and James 3). Warner’s final tier, exploration, states that technology could enhance our lives; thus, we are tasked with discovering ways that generative AI can be used on a “‘first do no harm’ basis” (230). 

We must also include our future-makers, students, in our conversations about how to navigate societal disruptions. Burriss and Leander argue that critical literacy praxis is only successful when students are recognized “as creators and agents of social change” (567). Similarly, Higgs and Stornaiuolo begin their article by positioning students as “philosophers of technology” (633), and conclude that students offer a unique, nuanced, and complex perspective that reinforces their essential role in determining how we navigate AI within education and society at large (646). And the Council of Youth Research positions critical literacy practice as a community activity “that foregrounds student learning within larger civic purposes” (Garcia et al. 165). By empowering students to be experts, alongside scholars and practitioners, we are fostering powerful future makers. We are embodying “education as the practice of freedom.”

Where do we go from here?

It’s possible that AI technologies will not be the hyper-entity or the disruption that society has positioned them to be. AI presents striking similarities to other tech bubbles in the recent past (Floridi 128). So, its disruption may be more about a short-term economic crisis — detrimental in itself — than a long-term displacement of humanity. Nonetheless, there will always be societal issues requiring our critical engagement. And it is through the praxis of critical literacy that we can successfully navigate these.

Positioning literacy to reflect society’s cultural values is not a new practice. Throughout its history, literacy education has morphed from an elitist study of the classics to a tool for developing “social efficiency” and propagating the dominant culture’s morals (Brass 46-7). Teaching literacy has bounced between meeting standardized and bureaucratic mandates to fostering social justice, agency, and empowerment (Thomas 129). And literacy itself has evolved from reading and writing “page-bound” text to “negotiating a multiplicity of discourses” that include composing and engaging within different modalities and sociocultural contexts (The New London Group 60-1). Ultimately, though, literacy is regarded as the search for truth: "We must listen carefully for those words that may reveal a truth, that may reveal a voice. We must respect our student for [their] potential truth and for [their] potential voice" (Murray 5). By perceiving and interpreting everything we encounter, reshaping our perspectives with each experience, and giving our thoughts back to the world, we use literacy to discover meaning and shape futures.  As scholars, practitioners, and students of literacy, we must continue to engage in critical conversations with each other and with society. We must do the work to discover ways to navigate disruptions with ethical, responsible, and socially just mindsets. 

In the end, it’s about enriching the lives of those who will read your work, and enriching your own life, as well. It’s about getting up, getting well, and getting over. Getting happy, okay? Getting happy… Writing is magic, as much as the water of life as any other creative art. The water is free. So drink. | Drink and be filled up. 

— Stephen King |  On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft, 269-70

Literacy As Power_Works Cited.pdf

Download PDF • 127KB