Method Two: Looking At
The term “functional understanding of literacy” might seem a misfit here: Mary’s account with Shaw isn’t printed, nor is it made or intended to circulate in a printed public sphere; its circulation is probably limited to Shaw and perhaps his shopkeepers, the Occoms, probably Wheelock, and the people who settled Shaw’s estate upon his death. But we can expand Weyler’s “functional understanding of literacy” to encompass a range of interactions with textual objects, including reading and writing as well as other interactions with paper, ink, letters, and words. These myriad uses for writing and reading are relational and require moving among them rather than placing them into hierarchies or selecting one over another.
Expanding literacy to include myriad interactions lets us think about accounting in capacious ways—going beyond numbers tallied on a page to the ways that people defined a debt and kept track of debts owed and paid. We can pay attention to the many Native people who had a functional understanding of how record keeping and making worked—whether in alphabetic orthographies or other forms—and an understanding of the power of a page of accounts as a representation of exchanges. Looking at thus offers an avenue for conceptualizing literacy in ways that attend to Native peoples’ diverse experiences of and relations to textual matter.