The Deficit Model

There is a common tendency in literacy work to slide into a deficit model. In societies where literacy is highly valued and part of schooling, it is easy for literacy work to frame the learner as the “problem”, with a deficit of skills, and to lose awareness of the learners' strengths and knowledge, and of the socially-framed nature of the problem. In the deficit model, only the individual literacy learner needs to change, society can be left unaltered. This approach suggests that the learner simply needs to improve her literacy skills to fit into society, the “problems” will be solved and she will have access to social mobility in the “meritocracy.” Analogies of literacy as a sickness or disease to be eradicated often signal this deficit approach.

During the process of the study I was enthralled by what I learned from the therapeutic field and how it could help us to work differently in literacy. However, I also struggled to avoid the ways in which that discourse could be a slippery slope to new deficit models for literacy work with those who have experienced violence. A therapeutic focus simply on individual “healing”, implies that the person is sick and can be well. Ora Avni's words, as she speaks of survivors of the holocaust, state this strongly:

Yes, we want to “heal”. Society wants to heal; history wants to heal. But, no, a simple “life goes on”, “tell your story”, “come to terms with your pain”, or “sort out your ghosts” will not do. It will not do, because the problem lies not in the individual--survivor or not--but in his or her interaction with society... (Avni, 1995, p.216)

Sandra Butler has also eloquently critiqued “individualized, de-contextualized, and de-politicized healing” (1992).

My study has revealed that “healing” is not an individual problem. It may not even be “abnormal” in this society for women to have experienced trauma. The goal of literacy work with those who have experienced trauma should not be simply to support their “healing” or to help them become well, or “normal.” The study is not intended to encourage literacy workers to believe that they must learn to diagnose who has been traumatized and then treat them differently from other learners. Trauma survivors should not be seen as “poor souls” in need of healing. But, it is the responsibility of literacy workers, funders and others in the field to recognize that all literacy learning must be carried out in recognition of the needs of survivors of trauma. Those needs should be “normalized” as an everyday part of the literacy program. What those “needs” ⁴ look like and how they could influence literacy work will be examined in the rest of this paper.

4  I want also to recognize throughout this study that, not only learners are survivors of trauma, but also literacy workers. Such experience will have impact on their work and teaching, just as learners' experiences have impact on their learning.