Even Webster has two primary definitions of literate listed: 1. To be Educated / Cultured; and 2. To be able to Read and Write. Secondary definitions include the generic proficiency and competence interpretations of the term.
OED has a more straightforward definition that begins with "knowledge of letters" and then "education, esp. the ability to read and write".
UNESCO seems to have a well-accepted definition that wraps itself around the printed word.
Recently, however, it's become the norm to co-opt the term and attach modifiers: "Computer Literacy", "Digital Literacy", "Media Literacy", "Assessment Literacy", etc.
I'm not a writer, but I do have an appreciation for precision of language. I believe that the overuse of the term dilutes its power and leverage.
It can be hard to have a discussion surrounding the importance of Literacy in Education when one person believes it means Reading and Writing ability, some believe it's about Reading, Writing and Arithmetic, and others believe it to be as far reaching as any Deductive Reasoning or Intellectual Discourse.
A term that is in use so much without specific context attached (School boards have Literacy Leads, Literacy Coaches; In Ontario, the Literacy/Numeracy Secretariat is a significant force in Education) needs to have a rock-solid definition.
So the discussion "Is Literacy a required cornerstone of Human Civilization as we know it?" is impossible to have unless we have a common understanding of what we mean by "Literacy".
So what is it? What is it in an educational context? Should we be using it in its modified form or leaving the term as a sacred entity unto itself in an educational context?
