Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article explores the relationship between book reading, reading literacy, democracy, and national security in a period of rapid technological, political, and linguistic change. Building on three recent reading manifestos (the Ljubljana Manifesto, the Riga Manifesto, and the Slovenian Manifesto on Reading for the 21st Century) it argues that higher-level reading is a foundational practice that supports critical thinking, perspective-taking, empathy, cognitive patience, and other capacities essential for democratic citizenship and resilience. To explain why higher-level reading has become increasingly important, the article identifies four interconnected developments shaping contemporary societies. First, new information technologies, including artificial intelligence, have expanded access to knowledge while also accelerating the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. Second, democratic institutions are facing increasing pressure from authoritarian and populist tendencies. Third, the growing dominance of English and advances in machine translation are transforming linguistic practices and raising questions about the future role of national languages. Fourth, international assessments such as Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) reveal declining reading literacy and widening inequalities in literacy skills across many developed countries. Drawing on recent empirical research, the article argues that literary reading enriches vocabulary, strengthens perspective-taking, and enhances the ability to understand complex social realities. It concludes that high levels of reading literacy, particularly in one’s first language, contribute to cultural resilience, innovation, democratic stability, and national security. Higher-level reading therefore should be regarded not only as an educational or cultural objective, but also as a strategic societal priority.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kovač et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: