Customer Reviews

Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(16)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

First off I think some reviewers are giving people the wrong idea of what this book has to offer. I think they meant to review the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy and not this book. After reading some of their reviews I purchased this book and it is not exactly what they led me to believe it was.

This book is made up of essentially two parts. The first part Hirsch put forth his theory that Americans are losing their ability to communicate effectively because they are lacking a common knowledge on certain core items. He sites back when people had a more standard education and were forced to read more because of a lack of television they were more commonly grounded in the same types of information.

To explain this theory simply he illustrates giving directions in a city when people assume you are a native to that city. The directions are simple because it is assumed one is familiar with certain landmarks (core knowledge). When giving directions to someone the believe to be a tourist, the directions get a lot more detailed because these people presumably lack the same knowledge of landmarks (core knowledge).

It is a very interesting theory and he backs it up with a lot of research. This book would be of great interest to anyone that is an educator by profession. It might be a little boring to anyone else. Some people have commented that this is a very conservative or right-leaning book. I really don't see that at all. He looks at this theory from the perspective of other cultures as well and the theory holds up. He does say that things people need to know to be culturally literate are often based on Western culture. This is true for the most part. He should not be vilified for pointing out the obvious. He doesn't say that one society is better than another. He just acknowledges that people of different cultures tend to have knowledge of certain things and that it is helpful to be familiar with those items.

The second part is an extensive list of cultural knowledge that experts have agreed on 90% of the time to be relevant. This is only a list. In no way does it define them or elaborate on them. That is what is supposedly spelled out in the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, the book I thought I was getting.

If you are an educator or interested in educating get this book. If you are interested in getting an education then skip this one.

Put this on your To-Read-No-Matter-What list.

Hasn't the popularity of "Dummies" books raised a red flag anywhere? What does that say about the average American reader's view of him/herself? Do we sense that we're educationally lacking?

Too many of America's young people do not have, because they haven't been taught, the knowledge they need to preserve the exceptional way of life they've inherited. They know Harry Potter and West Wing but not the Peloponnesian Wars or who said, "To be or not to be." They are culturally illiterate.

Cultural literacy is the background information we need to know in order to understand and to communicate in our society. Without it we wouldn't understand what a reviewer says when he likens Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman" to "Cinderella" or when a pundit says the environment is a politician's Achilles heel.

"To be culturally literate," Hirsch says, "is to possess the basic information needed to thrive in the modern world." Readers must understand the writer's unspoken "systems of associations."

I've taught college-level writing classes and have been astounded to meet students who have never read a book, who don't understand the simplest references to classical literature and who, frankly, don't care.

This ignorance threatens our very existence as a free nation. One of the most important points Hirsch makes is the need for the average citizen to understand enough science to comprehend debates about environmental and political issues. He cites the debate over the Strategic Defense Initiative and says of the voting public, "...their education should have provided them with the general facts and principles needed to understand the terms of the debate -- how a satellite works, what a laser is and can do, and under what conditions such a system would be likely to succeed or fail." He neglects to mention the historical, social and political backgrounds that enter into the debate but his point applies to those as well.

The highest stakes are involved here. The last election was a primary example of the ignorance of the American voter. Many still don't understand what happened and are merrily led down a primrose path of misunderstanding by an equally Constitutionally (as in the US Constitution)uninformed press. Further, and even sadder, they don't bother to find out!

Read CULTURAL LITERACY. Absorb it. Make it your mantra and work to see that the next generation of Americans learns the background of their culture as well as the history, sociology and science they need to protect our way of life at the ballot box.

A great irony, while reading several of the negative criticisms of Hirsch's controversial position, occurs when one considers that these critics would simply be unable to attack without being the embodiment of Hirsch's central postion: that reaching the higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy requires a set body of knowledge. Analyzing, synthesizing and evaluating information is literally impossible without first knowing, comprehending and applying.

A fine example is in the medical profession where the first year focuses narrowly on the rote memorization of the body. Without a set knowledge (knowing) of anatomy and the related maladies it is impossible to make effective diagnosis (analyzing, synthesizing, evaluating).

As an educator I have experienced first hand the industry driven mandate to produce a more effective group of critical and creative thinkers. In the process we have tragically discovered that such an endeavor is impossible without first teaching content. The kernal of Hirsch's position is that critical and creative thinking are absolutely intertwined with specific content. We as educators, parents and members of society are cheating our children and our futures if we fail to mutually and communaly provide a central frame of reference (or schema). Without such a frame of reference, contribution to and therefore extension of our culture will become but a distant memory.

We have been asked to focus upon the process of guess and go and the cult of the "How did you arrive at that solution?" over the precise "what are we putting into their heads". This is of course saying nothing of the cult of the self esteem. The result? I have seen the result as manifested in declining test scores, a rise of self absorbtion and an ever narrowing of world awareness.

Hirsch is not an elitist, in fact he strongly asserts (repeatedly) that it is indeed providing all students (and one of the beautiful facts of American Public Education is that "All" means ALL) with the same basic frame of reference enables them to take control over their lives and contribute actively as producers as opposed to passive consumers.

Having a common base of knowledge unites us all and crosses all boundries. It is that common fram of reference that defines our culture and truly creates a pluralistic society.

Hirsch provides plenty of qualitative and quantitative evidence to support his postion. His Bibliography and related sources are also most helpful.

Coming from a state that uses a prescribed reading assessment, I found his analysis of a reading selection describing Lee's surrender at Appomattox most illustrative of the need for more content based education. Hirsch and his fellow researchers found that the test takers were not able to construct (higher levels of Bloom) a great amount meaning due to their ignorance of even a basic knowlege of the American Civil War.

As an acting teacher, I have found that the individuals who have the greater knowledge of history, art, literature and general culture are able to produce far more nuanced and complete peformance. There is no way to stage a compelling play set during World War II without first researching the period.

Where Hirsch has drawn the most criticism is in his list (fleshed out in greater detail in his equally fascinating "Dictionary of Cultural Literacy"). In this list, Hirsch prescribes what he defines as the core knowledge. And of course any time someone goes out on a limb to make such a proclimation, there will be great holes (I believe Steinbeck is far more important - he isn't listed- than Norman Mailer - he is). But at least, Hirsch provides a starting point for creating specific curriculumn. Again, attacking Hirsch's critics, how does one know what isn't on the list if they haven't first learned that concept.

At any rate, whether one will agree with Hirsch or disagree, "Cultural Literacy" is a must read.

I read this book in 1995 and found it fundamentally correct with respect to two ideas: 1) that a core of knowledge is necessary to infer, read-between-the-lines, and to understand wholly much written material; 2) that *content* is vital in education - the mental organization of which (though association and other means) is essential to becoming educated. To demonstrate another assertion, namely that public education is largely failing, Hirsch claims that a majority of high school seniors can not correctly answer this question: "in what decades did the Civil War, World War I, and World War II occur?" I was 35 when I read this and asked it of a 25-year-old architect - who would not even attempt it.

In his book, E.D. Hirsch makes a good arguement that kids in America are not being taught the basic knowledge that they need in order to function and communicate effectively in our society. The book was published in 1988. Reading it was like hearing a voice crying in the wilderness. I can hear Hirsch's voice speaking louder with each passing year.

This vital information that Hirsch refers to is simply not being taught in schools, at least not enough of them. If you're concerned, ask your child what he's learning in history, science, math, English. Or just flip through the appendix in the back of the book where Hirsch lists his "What Literate Americans Know." Sure, it's not a perfect list, but it is a starting point.

Our culture is rapidly becoming one in which movie stars, professional sports stars, and scandals in the news are the factors that tie us together culturally as a nation. We are rapidly losing the thoughts, ideas, concepts, and lessons from our national culture that really matter. Read 'Cultural Literacy' and see if you agree.

E. D. Hirsh has unwittingly done a great service to the legions of history teachers who are both astounded and saddened that their students do not know in which century the American Civil War was fought. Clearly, Hirsh is correct as he bemoans the American students who lack not only grammatical, logical, and cognitive modes of thought but also a cultural context with which to ponder them. But I am concerned that he tries to do something about it in a piecemeal way that smacks of cultural elitism. Yes, I am concerned that the majority of American high school graduates cannot place Shakespeare's 'tide in the affairs of men' quote from "Julius Caesar," but perhaps not so much as he is. Although I like to think of myself as reasonably erudite at the ripe age of 53, I do not seem to remember that at the age of 17, I could identify that quote either. Learning in a way that allows the learner to pull together a myriad of literary, scientific, and historical strands is an ongoing process that probably never reaches full fruition. As I read the back of his book that constitutes a list of What Literate Americans Know, I was rather pleased that I was familiar with most, but I immediately tempered my egotistical enthusiasm with the sobering thought that many of these entries I learned somewhat late in life. This rather long learning curve may in fact be typical of most college educated Americans, who learned most of the really important stuff after they hung their degree on the wall. My greatest fear of this list is that an increasingly politically correct educational establishment will treat it as do high school teachers who must get their students to pass a series of basic skills tests as a prerequisite for graduation. 'Teaching to the test' may indeed result in the next generation of students doing quite well on quiz shows like "Jeopardy" but I fear that mastery of a sliced and segmented arc of someone's opinion of what constitutes a true cross-section of American culture may take precedence over a reasoned approach to that same arc.

An excellent book. And, the critics of this book miss the point. You are reading this review because you have developed the skill to recognize the meaning of words printed on the page. Try this experiment. Pick up any magazine or journal like The New Yorker, or something of similar quality, and circle every allusion that you recognize or recognize but don't understand the meaning. For example, allusions like "Catch 22" or "Oedipus complex." The pages, when you are done, should be covered with circles. The better educated you are, the better read you are, the more you know, the more you will recognize. This is your intellectual vocabulary. Just as it would be difficult to read anything if you did not understand the words you were reading, so too is it difficult to understand ideas without a good intellectual vocabulary. This book list what is essentially a basic intellectual vocabulary. And, rightly or wrongly, the intellectual material alluded to in most of our daily reading comes from the material listed. Consider this chauvanistic if you wish; regardless, it is a fact. And that, is the point.

I found this book in my research on classical curricula. It was referenced on the "core knowledge" curriculum cite. The basic premise is that children are not being taught what they need to know in order to have a common foundation of knowledge with others, and they are definitely not being taught the knowledge specific to our heritage, which would be Western and American culture. Hirsch does not really name it as such, because the multiculturalism fad really became prominent after the book was written (20 years ago).

The book is not really 272 pp long. The last 120 pages consists of footnotes and the "list" of what Americans should be familiar with in order to be "literate." This is basically an introduction; no specific curriculum is recommended.

What I found helpful is that Hirsch also gives us the historical background of why the classical tradition was dropped for the more "child-centered" and process-driven system, and the faulty logic that was accepted in that changeover.

If you are a classical educator or considering such, or just want another perspective on what is wrong with our current educational system, I think you should read this book.

Every American educator and most Americans in general need to read this book. It is the most ground breaking text to be written in the United States in the last 100 years. If all schoolboards and educators used this as a guide, we wouldn't have a problem with public education in this country. Unfortunately, the people who need to read it most, will be the ones who won't understand its message. Such is the paradox in American education today.

Do not confuse this book with its companion text "A Dictionary of Cultural Literacy", which several reviewers have done. The original explains Hirsch's theory of "necessary knowledge" and the latter gives brief explanations of all of the items listed in his original book. I agree with one reviewer that a bit more information on each item would be better in the "Dictionary", but it is already a large volume as it is.

Rene Navarre, MBA

Instructor, Remington College

As other reviewers have noted, there is something shaky (and a little shady) about E.D. Hirsch's argument and intention for compiling this book. And there's something a bit presumptuous about the subtitle. But to be honest, I could care less. The real value of "Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know" is as a resource for people who want to know what exactly others mean when they use expressions or make cultural references.

It is irrelevant WHY some people don't know these references. Maybe because they're young (although I don't believe it's a generational issue). And the PC will scream and whine that the book doesn't have enough entries about lesser known cultures. The fact is that writers, journalists, politicians, religious leaders, et al., make these references when they are trying to illustrate a point. This book, for whatever its intention, gives the reader/listener a place to turn. And that's enough of a reason. And on that level, "Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know" works just fine!