One of the most interesting things brought up in the Kaestle reading was the connection between one’s signature and their literacy level. Although whether you can or cannot sign your name is not necessarily an indicator of an individual’s literacy, it could and has been used as the sort of jumping off point in determining the functional literacy of the signatories. The idea being that if you can sign your name you can obviously write and can read at a level of comprehension. While Kaestle has quickly pointed out the flaws of determining someone’s literacy based solely on their ability to sign their name, focusing primarily on the idea of functional literacy, it’s interesting it examine what being able to sign your name today really means.
When a document is signed there is this implied understanding of what has been laid out, particularly when one is dealing with legally binding documents. But when you think back to when we were all learning to sign our names, can any of us really say we comprehended most, if any, of the written language? I know for myself one of the first things I learned was how to write my name. I’d copy my parents’ boxy script until I could emulate it, obviously with a novice hand. Did that mean I had achieved literacy? No, not at all really. I couldn’t read or really write – definitely not a level of comprehension that would be moderately close to counting as literate. Are there differences to the importance of signature with age? Probably. But for me it is still fascinating that scholars have considered the signature as part of the threshold of comprehension. What are all your thoughts on the idea of a signature equating literacy?
It’s important to take into account how different and widespread literacy has become among all people in modern times. Some centuries ago, most likely when people were taught how to write their name or sign documents, the signature was a sign of re-affirmation that you understood whatever the document is that you just placed your name upon. In today’s world when we are taught reading and writing, the first thing we learn is how to write our name. It’s a complete reversal of why people are taught certain things because of how different our world is today. In previous times one’s signature may have been an adequate bar for being “literate” but over time when literacy was developed, the bar has been increasing.
This is fascinating! Back when I was a kid (maybe second grade or so), I spent an entirety of a math class sitting in the back, trying to find the perfect signature that meshed with who I identified as. So, after a lot of work, I basically studied Thomas Jefferson’s and Hancock’s signature style, trying to analyze the movement of the lines and the way in which the ink flows with the left—-right motion of the hand.
My current signature is an adaptation of that, but ultimately I chose it because it reflected an element of artistry and ‘flair’. But so much of the conversation surrounding signatures are centered on the idea of ‘utility’ and efficiency, almost robbing us of what a signature is supposed to be: the way in which someone literarily represents who they are. I wonder in which way that train of thought contributes to the distinct separation of traditional ‘literacy’ that we see in the historical records concerning who could sign their name and who couldn’t.