After reading the essays for week two a few thoughts have surfaced. From Pencils to Pixels by Denis Baron is an interesting dissection of the evolution of literacy technology. I was particularly taken by his discussion about technology being useful only insofar as it is seen as trustworthy. Baron says, "In order to gain acceptance, a new literacy technology must also develop a means of authenticating itself" (21). I had never considered that an object as ubiquitous as a pencil had to "prove itself" as being a worthy means of communication and that even Plato warned of the dangers of the written word. Baron also discusses the complexity of the pencil making process in Roman times as a "cumbersome and expensive" process that only the wealthy would have been able to afford much like computers and mobile devices of today. I couldn't help but think of the Britannica Blog video and the discussion by Michael Wesch. He talks about the "kids these days" problems that many would like to blame on technology. It is apparent to me that this same line of reasoning is inherent in the evolution of literacy technology. Sure, today its IPods, IPhones and laptop computers, but in Plato's time it was the pencil.
Not only have we evolved in our writing technology, but according to Johndan Johnson-Eilola "We are comfortable with unreliable narrative... we understand reading and writing subjects as ongoing, contingent constructions, never completely stable or whole...we're at ease with postmodernism" (199). His discussion in The Database and the Essay intrigued me regarding postmodernism, Intellectual Property, and capitalism. He claims that IP law has caught up with postmodernism, that "textual content has been commodified, put into motion in the capitalist system, forced to earn its keep by moving incessantly" (203). I had not considered the economic implications of breaking down and fragmenting texts to be sold like commodities. Johnson-Eilola argues that corporations will eventually hold the rights to collections of information which is as unpleasant to me as genome patents. Geisler addresses the IP issue in the essay IText and concludes that "the property metaphor is not adequate for the age of ITexts because knowledge is not a commodity that is depleted if it is shared; rather, it is reconstituted, reformed, and resituated" (289). If we have truly become a society of collaborative writers then how can a text be "owned" when there isn't a clear cut author?
Kohl also addresses the issue of collaborative works and focuses his discussion on the Wiki. In History Now he states that the Wiki has further dissolved the distinction of author and recipient and texts are no longer static but fluidly changing forms of writing. Kohl says, "texts that develop in Wiki systems are therefore not singular historical events, but possess a temporal structure. Therefore, they must be understood and analyzed as writing processes and less as final works". (171) The Wiki is a collaborative writing process of constructing knowledge. As Johnson-Eilola says, "authors are more like designers" (222) working as a team to craft a shared message from varying points of view.
At the crux of Geisler's argument is that more research is needed regarding information technology. Geisler states "ITexts lie on the far end of the technological spectrum - the bleeding edge, where the two ends of the terms technology and communication overlap each other in critical and exciting ways" (278). The essay echoes the lament of Johnson that the "author is dead" and that today's texts are collaborative, dynamic - "an ongoing, negotiated process" (279). Geisler speaks about the need to develop systems that facilitate the usefulness and value of ITexts and poses a multitude of questions that she believes should be asked.
I was particularly intrigued by Geisler's argument that it has become a "moral obligation" to upgrade. I have always questioned the wisdom of the pace of information technology "improvement". Is the IPhone 4S really that much better? And what about the social consequences of always being available? She asks, "How can we develop social norms to regulate their [mobile technologies] use so that they are less intrusive, so that work-related frameworks do not dominate, so that complexity does not become overwhelming?"(297). This question gets at the heart of it for me. At what point are we slaves to technology? When is more not more?
When I think about Plato warning about the written word...who was he really directing this to? Was he meaning that the written word could come back and make government look bad? Plato and Socratese lived years ago, and due to written word, we can see how when Socaratese went against the norm, the goverment/church silenced him. Even though they are gone, due to the written word, we see how the church and such was seen in those days. So is it possible Plato was merely warning the church?
ReplyDeleteI does suck to think that someday companies will try to hold the rights to information. At first it sounded like a weird thought from the readings, but then I remember how Donald Trump wanted to patent the phrase, "YOU'RE FIRED!" Anything for a buck, I guess.
Kevin, I think you make a good point regarding Socrates and the church/government silencing him. If you think about it, there is liberty in sharing information and the more information is shared I would like to think society has become more egalitarian. For example, lets take the Arab Spring movement. Here we have a repressed population that has used technology (i.e. digital communication) in an attempt to achieve liberty and equality. Mubarek was forced to leave and Egypt held its first democratic election in 60 years because of the power of information. As technology (voice) has become available to more and more people I would like to think that people are able to achieve agency for themselves.
ReplyDelete