Because all definitions of literacy project both a literate self and an illiterate other, the tropics of literacy stipulate the political as well as cultural terms on which the "literate" wish to live with the "illiterate" by defining what is meant by reading and writing... Functional literacy may be less a matter of decoding and comprehending such documents (since to do so requires specialized knowledge of law and economics as well as written language) and more the fact that I have ready access to the resources I need to use the documents. This is what separates the literate "us" from the illiterate "them.

I could go on and on about the Southam Survey, but I want to pause here, and note the way in which an OTHER is being constituted - not only the capriciousness of the process, but the inherent race, class and gender biases that organize its construction. Anyone who cannot respond to 8 out of 10 of those items, in English or French, is by definition, illiterate. One million, or 42% of the foreign-born (excluding those from the USA and British Isles) are, according to the Southam Survey, illiterate. The Survey "reveals" that multilingual people are highly "illiterate." The numbers of foreign-born currently being admitted into Canada with fewer years of schooling than in the past is cited as one of the reasons for the increase in illiteracy. By definition, these "foreigners" cannot function adequately - are illiterate - and are a threat to our nation.

The gender bias works much more subtly. Women make up "only" 46.5% of the "illiterate" population, whereas men make up 53.5%. The difference in performance on items is highly indicative of the experience-dependent nature of the Survey. The items women tend to miss more than men are those that involve transportation (reading maps and traffic signs, deciphering bus and airline schedules) and employment (filling out income tax and job application forms). They do better on interpretive questions that involve more reading, including what I found to be an extremely confusing question on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (That nearly 60% of all surveyed missed this item is seen as cause for national alarm, not an indication of fault with the item!).

Working mothers performed correctly on more items than non-working mothers: of those who worked, only 16% were deemed to be illiterate as contrasted to a 27% rate for those at home while their children were in primary school. The concern expressed in the Report about what this means for the education of the young (i.e. youth spending time with illiterate mothers) points to the gendered and class-biased nature of the text.

While these statistics have to be looked at with a high degree of skepticism, they do echo what I've noted in my research among Latino immigrants in Los Angeles, as well as that of Jenny Horsman among women in rural Nova Scotia ⁴ - namely, that women's "work" includes doing most of the literacy-related tasks of the household, except for those directly related to transportation and employment, areas they are often not allowed to enter. As for the higher rate of literacy among women in the work force, my guess is that this reflects the highly literacy-dependent nature of the work available to women: they must be able to read - and read well - in order to enter the clerical, secretarial, sales and service sectors of the economy where women predominate. Most other work available to women - factories and fast foods - does not pay enough to cover the costs of child care.

Literacy is important to women; in their gendered construction of work in our society, literacy is more important for women than for men. But much more than literacy is required. Even using Southam's definition, reading a cough syrup label won't do anything to move you out of poverty - if that's the issue - and they say it is. Access to education that can make a difference is at stake, not literacy. For women, a decent job requires not only high school completion, but some form of further education as well.

Elsewhere, I've written that literacy is women's work, but not women's right. ⁵ Women can be invisibly literate, silently doing the literacy-related work of the household. But let them seek education and see the resistance and direct opposition they often meet from their male partners. To actually "capitalize" on their literacy - to turn it into "cultural capital" - can upset the asymmetrical power dynamics in the family. The need to protect the male ego at the cost of women's lives is seen as quite OK, even humorous, in our culture.

Calamai plays into this "humor" by framing the news about women's performance as follows:

Male egos take another battering in the war of the sexes. The Southam Survey shows women are more skilled readers. [Italics in text].