Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory

2017 Edition
| Editors: Michael A. Peters

Literacies and Identity

  • Donna E. Alvermann
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-588-4_116



Conceptualized within sociocultural theory, literacies are social practices (Gee 2015; Street 1993) and thus implicated in how people negotiate their identities as readers and writers. For instance, coming to view oneself as a literate person in a certain kind of social group (e.g., a Harry Potter book club) is dependent on being recognized by others in that group as a person who is like them – one who has read all of J.K. Rowling’s fantasy series, perhaps written some fan fiction about Harry and other characters in the series, blogged a critique of the Harry Potter films, and so on. Lacking such recognition does not mean that a person is disinterested in other fantasy novels, but rather is simply outside an affinity group that calls itself the Harry Potterbook club. Yet, within certain school contexts, so-called disaffected readers are often labeled as struggling or having a disability that is in need of remedial...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Alvermann, D. E., & Rubinstein-Ávila, E. (in press). Latin@ youth’s new media use in the New South: ¿Common sense for the common good? In S. Salas & P. Portes (Eds.), Latinization and K-12 communities: National perspectives on regional change. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cole, D. R., & Pullen, D. L. (Eds.). (2010). Multiliteracies in motion: Current theory and practice. London: Routledge/Taylor.Google Scholar
  3. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  4. Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and games. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning (pp. 21–40). The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Gee, J. P. (2015). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (5th ed.). London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  6. Hagood, M. C. (2002). Critical literacy for whom? Reading Research and Instruction, 41(3), 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnson, L. L., Bass, T., & Hicks, M. (2014). Creating critical spaces for youth activists. In P. Paugh, T. Kress, & R. Lake (Eds.), Teaching towards democracy with postmodern and popular culture texts (pp. 37–58). Dordrecht: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Moje, E. B., & Luke, A. (2009). Literacy and identity: Examining the metaphors in history and contemporary research. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(4), 415–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2014). Artifactual literacies. In M. M. Albers (Ed.), New methods in literacy research (pp. 163–176). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Street, B. V. (1993). Cross cultural approaches to literacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  12. Thorn, C. (2013). Jim Gee: Principles on gaming. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aQAgAjTozk

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of GeorgiaAthensUSA