Selective Literacy

We've all seen the power of literacy, especially its ability to leave particular illiterate groups disenfranchised. Too often the difference between a respected, influential group in society and a systematically underrepresented one is, among other things, a significant gap in literacy. In our increasingly digital culture, it's easy to assume that identity markers have begun to melt away and hierarchy has disappeared, as literacy requirements presumably have been shed as well. However, with regard to my online community, this couldn't be farther from the truth.

I reported previously on the clear hierarchy that exists on this site; rich as discussion routinely is, the elitism of the board's upper tier makes its way into too many arguments, often to everyone's detriment. But on what basis is this hierarchy generated? Naturally, as we see in our offline society, there are countless factors that determine status and placement. But, also evident in our offline culture, literacy can be a significant factor in placement, even more so than offline. This is because where we are able to use countless identity markers to consider social position offline, online identities, especially on my board, are products of one's posts. And when a person's words are the specified characteristic that generates a given identity for along while, their competency in the topic being discussed essentially defines who they are and what position their opinion holds.

This doesn't seem entirely unfair, though. Why shouldn't someone with a great wealth of musical knowledge be given a premier voice in a community that discusses music (particularly rap music)? The problem lies in the fact that those that aren't as familiar with the genre — who haven't been listening for multiple decades, or have completely digested the entirety of every "important" rapper's catalog — are constantly discredited. There's no room for revision; you are either completely familiar with a song or album in its original context from its original release, or you have no say (and you're white).

Well fine then. So the elder statesmen of the forum are on top when it comes to what essentially entails historical discussion. We can assume the conversation is equalized when the conversation comes to newer artists since everyone has equal access to information, right? Well, no, we can't. The second problem is that people who have a fluency in artists of today contrast heavily with those on top of the hierarchy because those on top of the hierarchy are deliberately ignorant when it comes to today's developments. Part of being on top of the discussion board is being unfamiliar with or disapproving of newer artists. Some of it is because they sometimes reject the conventions of the genre that they are so familiar with from decades of engagement. But most of it is just a product of being ignorant; no generative discussion is had about newer artists because the tastemakers of the board don't care enough to have an opinion. Even worse, if you are more familiar with today's artists than you are with those of years past, your literacy is considered inadequate and your opinion is largely invalid.

Literacy — but not proficiency —determines where you stand in the Okayplayer hierarchy. Selective literacy is given the greatest status overall, which is destructive because it breeds contempt with gathering new knowledge and building new opinions. Have you seen an example of elitism getting on the way of discussion in your experiences?