Although there may be a level of abstraction at which similarities can be made to appear, there is also a level of specificity at which differences create a significant gap. (Katherine Hayles,) The study of writing systems has had a long history within the discipline of anthropology, and opinions concerning its importance and the kind of problems it should address have shown diversity. This book tries to deal with the concept of literacy in various traditional societies, and how writing has influenced literacy. Before going any further it is important to understand what literacy means. As Goldfish suggested literacy is a tool, it is not just confined to reading and writing, there are various types of literacy, such as oracy speaking and understanding oral language, computer literacy, cultural literacy (ideas and ideals from past culture that defined and shaped today‟s society). It is a way through which we learn about the world and can participate in the society. Goody gives a contrast between literate and non literate societies where he emphasizes on alphabetic literacy, it further analysis the effect of writing on „modes of thought‟ and major societal institutions. It is an anthropological account of changing ways of thinking in east and west; it tries to break away from superiority created by dichotomy between west‟s the domesticated or civilized ones and east‟s the savage or the barbaric. It explains the concept of literacy; taking in account understanding of sociology, psychology, linguistics, philosophy, history and others. The understanding of literacy and the different theories about literacy have changed and developed over time. There are four present learning theories that most people believe. They are constructivist, interactive, sociolinguistic, and reader response. It is the sociolinguistic theory with which we can compare Goody‟s work. Sociolinguistic theories focus on the cultural dimension that affects literacy. It is a social activity, and is therefore created and changed by the culture. Vygotsky believes that language helps to organize thought, and children use language to communicate and share experiences as well as to learn. The fact that language is for social purposes is important to remember when teaching; exemplify that, and work it into different activities. Scaffolding is a belief of Vygotsky that uses parents and teachers as support mechanisms for students; enabling them to accomplish more difficult things that they would not be able to do without collaboration. Performing tasks that one can already do does not help to increase knowledge. Zone of proximal development is the range of tasks between the student's actual developmental level and their potential level. Vygotsky differentiates between scientific knowledge and everyday knowledge. He focuses on the role instructions in formal setting, in other words he talks about function of literacy in society. Nineteenth century evolutionist seized upon the presence or absence of writing as a typological criteria which, when used to define different levels of cultural development, served handily to distinguish “civilization” from its antecedent stages. Shortly before 1900 interest shifted to the history of writing itself, many theories were propounded which traced the evolution of graphic communication from its present state of development as alphabet. But it gradually stopped around 1950‟s and 60‟s as linguist depicted writing as mere representation of oral language without having its own body and soul. But it was not the end during the last decade, interest in systems of writing had started to accelerate. There were many reasons for the same but one the major reasons was Goody‟s persistent advocacy writing bearing directly on basic problems in anthropological theory. The domestication of Savage Mind constitutes eight chapters, which deals with various aspects of alphabetical literacy and its affect on society at large. It also takes on major consequence of literacy on structure and operation of human mind. Firstly I will try to summarize the book and with will put forward arguments so as to analyze it closely. For decades, anthropologists have tried to draw empirically valid distinction between „primitive‟ and „advanced‟ form of thought. The contrast has been phrased in many ways. It looks at how modes of thought have changed over the period of time and space. How binaries have been created which are rooted in we/they which is both ethnocentric and analytically confining. This kind of framework is either non developmental, a flaw that precludes the possibility of accounting for the historical emergence of „advanced‟ form of thought from their presumably more rudimentary precursors. It has happened because the way sociologist and anthropologist have studied it that is through cultural relativism, which is nonevolutionary in nature. The