Promoting reading 1
a decline in reading comprehension, described in
PISA reports and the like? Literature has, of course, a value in itself, so why justify reading promotion with values other than literature itself? Declaring reading to be potentially “useful” is often perceived as reducing reading to being merely useful. But the fact that an activity is in any way “useful” does not rule out the possibility that it has a value in itself. Incidentally, this does not just apply to literature, but to all cultural practice. As historian of ideas David Karlsson (2010) has pointed out, the issue of culture having an intrinsic value or being useful is based on a false assumption of an antipathy between the two. It is not a question of either or. At first sight, a division between autotelic and instrumental culture may appear to be elucidating. But such a division is also liable to overshadow the fact that cultural activities often have both an intrinsic value and an instrumental value. Thus, there is nothing contradictory about viewing the reading of literature as an activity with intrinsic value, while simultaneously giving it further legitimacy by referring to the positive educational and social effects of reading. Furthermore, a useful effect of reading literature, in the form of improved reading skills, is also in turn an instrument and a prerequisite for being able to benefit from the intrinsic value of literature in the first place. The fact that free voluntary reading can have positive effects on language development has been known for a long time. In a thesis on voluntary reading among pupils in primary and secondary school, Du Toit (2004) describes research that has demonstrated the positive effects of voluntary reading such as extended vocabulary, improved writing skills, better results in reading tests, and more positive attitudes to reading in general. A positive correlation between reading enjoyment and reading skills has been shown in many studies; see for example Clark & De Zoysa (2011) and Clark (2011). The relationship between reading frequency and reading skills has also been mapped; see for example Clark & Douglas (2011) and Clark (2011). In a meta-analysis of 99 studies, Mol & Bus (2011) confirmed a well-known positive spiral regarding reading: children who read a lot improve their reading ability, and children with good reading ability read more, further improving their reading ability. Several international research reports exude high hopes for the potential of voluntary reading to combat exclusion and raise educational levels. A summary of the benefits of reading for pleasure can be found in the report Research evidence on reading for pleasure from the Department for Education in London (2012), for example. Citing a number of studies, Clark & Rumbold (2006) list the effects of voluntary reading such as improved reading ability and writing ability, improved comprehension, grammar and vocabulary, a better attitude to reading, increased self-confidence as a reader, greater inclination towards voluntary reading later in life and increased general knowledge – but also better understanding of other cultures, increased participation in society, and greater insight into human decision-making. In the study Regionalism and the Reading Class (2008), sociologist Wendy Griswold termed the portion of the population who regularly engage in reading for pleasure “the reading class”, and noted among other things that affluent people read more. A number of studies show that children from less endowed social circumstances generally read less for pleasure than children from more privileged classes. In Litteraturutredningen (The enquiry into literature) (2012), it was found that the highly educated are twice as 23