Reading Questions for Writing for Electronic Communities
As I said in class last week, I'll get the discussions rolling. Tonight I have a series of five questions for everyone to consider. You can post a bit here throughout the week, and you can use the questions as prompt's for Monday night's class.
I've jumped around a bit in the readings, so I'll offer page numbers for you to orient yourself.
Here we go...
1. Robert Heilbroner puts forward the idea of technological determinism as a problem of a social time period marked by high capitalism and low socialism, so technology is unleashed but agencies that can control or guide this technology are rudimentary (p.14).
Given that, think about the electronic writing technologies we have in society today...is Heilbroner correct in his observation that -- for writing -- the technologies are unleashed but there are very basic, raw controls or guidelines for content and presentation? Be able to explain your ideas cogently.
2. Hans Jonas's article is quite interesting in that Jonas describes technology as a "species of power" (p.24). Thinking about writing in these new technological environments, who/what has the power over the written word? Are there dangers or concerns related to power that we should be wary of when linking writing to technology?
3. Now, think about Heidegger's essay "Question Concerning Technology" particularly in light to how you respond to question 2 -- pay close attention to the "four causes" Heidegger outlines on p. 36. Now, consider Heidegger's notion of "telos" in relation to both the "four causes" and to writing in an electronic environment. How must writers be responsible for their words given Heidegger's sections on pp.36-37?
4. Marcuse discusses technology and efficiency on p.65. Is writing made more efficient through changes in technology? If so, how? If not, why not?
5. Pay close attention to the Aldous Huxley quotes in Habermas's essay "Technological Progress and the Social Life-World." What do Huxley's observations about literature teach us about the connections between writing and electronic environments?
Have a go! See you Monday night at 6:30.
I've jumped around a bit in the readings, so I'll offer page numbers for you to orient yourself.
Here we go...
1. Robert Heilbroner puts forward the idea of technological determinism as a problem of a social time period marked by high capitalism and low socialism, so technology is unleashed but agencies that can control or guide this technology are rudimentary (p.14).
Given that, think about the electronic writing technologies we have in society today...is Heilbroner correct in his observation that -- for writing -- the technologies are unleashed but there are very basic, raw controls or guidelines for content and presentation? Be able to explain your ideas cogently.
2. Hans Jonas's article is quite interesting in that Jonas describes technology as a "species of power" (p.24). Thinking about writing in these new technological environments, who/what has the power over the written word? Are there dangers or concerns related to power that we should be wary of when linking writing to technology?
3. Now, think about Heidegger's essay "Question Concerning Technology" particularly in light to how you respond to question 2 -- pay close attention to the "four causes" Heidegger outlines on p. 36. Now, consider Heidegger's notion of "telos" in relation to both the "four causes" and to writing in an electronic environment. How must writers be responsible for their words given Heidegger's sections on pp.36-37?
4. Marcuse discusses technology and efficiency on p.65. Is writing made more efficient through changes in technology? If so, how? If not, why not?
5. Pay close attention to the Aldous Huxley quotes in Habermas's essay "Technological Progress and the Social Life-World." What do Huxley's observations about literature teach us about the connections between writing and electronic environments?
Have a go! See you Monday night at 6:30.
posted by Diane Penrod at 1/29/2006
10 Comments:
I'm pressed for time, but I wanted to partially post my response by class time.
4. (Marcuse)
Unfortunately, it seems that efficiency is the guiding/driving principle of writing with our current technology. The speed and ease with which one can accomplish a writing task using a word processor tempts us to write on-the-fly, rather than contemplatively; to choose synonyms hastily/thoughtlessly via the integrated thesaurus; to cease when we’ve reached a certain number of pages/words (re: micro/paragraphs and macro/overall). This sounds counter-intuitive or paradoxical, yet the very efficiency that technology facilitates also translates writing precisely into a practical task for us simply to complete.
5. (Habermas/Huxley) First, recall that for Huxley, literature represnts social reality or lived experience, while science deals mostly in abstractions with its observations, facts, data, etc. Another way of perceiving this is to consider that science consequently ignores the reality of social life with its methodical/pseudo-objective lens.
Though one could argue that literature represents culture socio-historically (without digressing about the problematic terms of representation), for me, literature has always been the discourse of fiction –- possibility, thought experiments, alternatives of epistemology and ontology, etc. –- rather than practical like the empirical sciences.
With this in mind, online discourse was once perceived as largely fictitious, primarily during the text-only period of the internet: recall the dystopic rhetoric of “cyberspace” (epistemology), the fictional characters of MUDs/MOOs (ontology), vacuous chat room anonymity, etc. Prior to a very recent cultural shift (as I have argued previously), online writing and especially environments were perceived similar to fiction/literature.
Now, scientific rhetoric pervades our discussions and perceptions of the Web, which presently illustrates the continual progress of digital technology (always advancing precisely through computer science, R&D, etc.). As a simple example, we now study, write about, and discuss “online social networks” rather than collective user-driven fictions (MUDs/MOOs). Ironically, it seems that Huxley’s description of literature applies to online environments, though now discussed in scientific terms -- consider “network culture” (Mark Taylor’s usage), which nicely signifies our recently applying network science to our understanding of the Web and contemporary society.
I am discussing plagiarism with my students this week and in preparing my lessons, I looked over an article published in The Council Chroncile called Teaching Plagiarism in a Digital Age. I think when teaching about plagiarism, technology and writing merge to benefit the student's understanding of plagiarism--thus proving that writing is made more efficient through technology. Students can publish their work on the Web so that teachers and peers can edit and review their writing--more eyes on the lookout for plagiarism. I think blogs and wikis--collaborative websites--provide students the opportunity to learn how to paraphrase and cite sources. On the other hand, all these new media resources prove a concern when students go to properly credit electronic and digital sources.
1. (Heilbroner) This is a complicated issue depending upon what kind of writing technologies we consider: regarding standards for consumer hardware and software, personal computers are mostly influenced/directed (controlled) by dominant corporate interests. We must always keep in mind that the decisions of Dell, Microsoft, Google et al are profit-driven, which corresponds with Heilbroner’s claims about high capitalism. ISPs thus far have been pretty laize-faire, with the exception of limiting our bandwidth, but wireless providers (either mobile phone or WiFi service) charge ridiculous prices that (likely) small percentages of the population can afford. I hardly see any technology “unleashed” for mass usage, especially emerging devices.
On the surface, communication technology (or protocols) – especially email, instant messaging, web-based text – seems a bit less (rigorously) regulated, but this is not the case for mobile communication (e.g. various levels of limitations on text/media messaging) or alternate methods of distribution (e.g. peer-to-peer). I could try to send you a (hypothetical) novel I just wrote via p2p or email, but you might get sued by the RIAA for running Soulseek (or your computer is paralyzed by KaZaa’s spyware) or your email provider might reject my attachment because it exceeds your quota.
As for the control of web-based writing…
2. (Jonas) Currently, online writing is subject to power that I would call discursive hegemony: in some cases, it is explicit, such as English’s serving as the unofficial language of the WWW; other times, we fashion our writing to comply with the indirect pressure from the context/audience (especially concerning college-hosted pages).
When we censor ourselves, we illustrate how almost all online writing appears within hierarchical or dominant relationships/contexts, where some force of influence functions. This is more evident in cases of obvious/direct censorship, such as message board moderators or website administrators who remove posts, delete accounts, and/or block users, as well as the blog police, who may abolish weblogs altogether at their discretion.
On the web, the only opportunity for uninhibited discourse is through registering one’s own domain and paying for server space in order to create/maintain one’s own site. Of course, this is complicit with the capitalist beliefs and practices that rule the internet; therefore, such recourse (paying for the venue to speak/write freely) essentially reinforces the power of the institutions that oppress (censor) online behavior/writing.
3. Considering Heidegger’s explanation of “telos,” I would say that the function or significance of online writing becomes shaped by the resultant (end) context in which it appears; by subsequent reception and reaction (is the writing even read?); by its historical (time) specificity, as it is inherently connected to – and somewhat defined by – the moment the writing appears online. Along with what I discussed above, I insist that writers must always keep in mind their responsibility, as writing online seems doubly deliberate (in that we not only compose, but then publish). Granted, the ever-available option to edit and/or remove one’s writing diminishes (eliminates?) our sense of this responsibility; however, once it is read, we can not undo the affect of publicizing our writing.
I read over your blog, and i found it inquisitive, you may find My Blog interesting. So please Click Here To Read My Blog
http://pennystockinvestment.blogspot.com
When looking through the listserv for WPA, I saw the heading the evil of computers. I clicked on this, and the discussion was about word-processed essays being less well-written than hand-written essays. Some ideas expressed were that students spend more time on the mechanics of an essay when typing rather than the composing process. Also some people suggested that the typed version is seen as more of a final product leaving less feel for the revision process--which is an important part of writing. Some people questioned rather than the "species of power" that the computer often portrays rather what about the "power of print"? This discussion about the evil of the computer stems from an article in Higher Education called The Surprises of the Writing Process. I agree that students spend too much time on thinking about fonts and spacing when typing papers and less time composing the paper. Or the distractions that can occur when working on a paper--instant messanger or the urge to read and write e-mail. However, the computer can be an efficient tool for writing and revising--students can have time to think about their essays and revise words and sentences easily. It is interesting to think if the computer and technology is ruining the writing process and writing itself?
1) I think Heilbroner is saying that in our society, technological progress speeds ahead faster every day. However, we don’t have a system in place to police that spread or its content. In that way, there isn’t a real conscious entity in charge. Technology itself is in control. I agree with that assessment. Technology speeds ahead at such a rapid rate that it‘s incredibly hard for the average person to keep up. My mother never touches the computer, let alone gets on the internet. Yet, I can’t imagine living even a day without access to it. When so many people don’t understand the basics, how does society control content? We can’t. We’re at the mercy of technology.
2) Who has the power over the written word in these new environments? That’s hard to say. My first thought is corporations. They have control over many aspects of the internet. The individual generally must pay to be granted access to the internet and then pay again if they want to take up any actual space. However, at this point I think the individual has the power. Though there can be censorship by both governments and corporations, they can’t shut everything down. They can’t find every blog or every message board post. If one program or access point is closed off, another will simply spring up in its place. Probably after finding some legal loop holes. The internet is very much like the Wild West. We’re struggling to control as many aspects as we can, but it’s still an anything goes environment.
There are certainly concerns one must examine when they put any sort of information on the internet. When you put yourself out there, you must realize that any information you divulge could be used against you. It could be used to hurt others. Likewise, you must also realize that since anyone can put information out there, there’s always the danger of being taken in by false information. Everything you read must be taken with a grain of salt.
4) For the most part, I think writing is made much more efficient through changes in technology. Not just the physical process, but in the distribution of writing and exchange of ideas. It’s much easier to gain access to the work of others today than it was a hundred years or even five years ago. I still talk to my childhood friends thanks to the speed of internet communication. If we had to write letters back and forth we would have all lost touch years ago. Computer programs automatically format words and paragraphs for us to meet our specific needs. They help us with grammar and spelling, allowing us to focus more on content as opposed to mechanics. They act as mini-teachers. Those that are willing can gain a wealth of information from even just one simple computer program.
However, sometimes those very advantages cause some of us, even perhaps many of us to become lazy. It can dilute our writing. Some may use these quick fixes offered by computer programs and not take the time to think about content. Sometimes, we stop thinking about what’s important in an assignment and think too much about presentation. We may use technology as an easy excuse to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. Because computers make things so much easier, we become spoiled and look for more and more ways to save time and skip the actual thought process that’s so important to writing.
Ultimately, I think it depends on the individual and their use of technology. Whether they embrace the advantages or abuse this new power. I personally believe that advances in technology do much more good than they do harm.
5) Huxley says that Literature deals in the very specific human world. The world that deals with human emotions, actions and the uniquely human perceptions of all things. Things that change everyday and offer potentially different experiences each time. Science generally deals with the static. They find the way something actually works and move on. Also, in many instances scientists are dealing with what they can’t see and/or personally experience.
I don‘t fully understand the question, but I‘ll try. The connection between writing and electronic environments is bringing these two ideas closer together. For a long time, cyberspace was like literature in that it was mostly made up of e-mail and chat rooms. It was a simple way for individuals to communicate. As internet use has grown, so has the exchange of information. People are much more knowledgeable now that they have access to all those scientific ideas. At the same time, communication between individuals has grown and our exposure to the literature side of Huxley’s argument has grown as well. There is not necessarily such a clear line between the two anymore.
Both Tyler and Gary's points resonate with me. While the market certainly drives technology and our general access to it, at some point the process does have a feel that technology takes control of itself and keeps growing.
Of course, that's anthropomorphising technology, but as we have been reading, people have anthropomorphised technology for centuries.
Mark Taylor, as Gary notes, is an interesting individual to look at regarding "network culture." However, I'm increasingly becoming more curious and more persuaded by Internet or Networked culture transforming into collective or "swarm" intelligence, where human mental power mixes with nonhuman technology to create either a massive breakthrough in thinking or a massive breakdown in communication -- the latter seems aptly described by what Miss Fox noted was posted on the WPA list.
Ah, we will continue these and other discussions....
1. I think Heilbroner’s theory is correct that these “agencies” are often unprepared to govern new technology. For instance, there are tons of teenagers creating blogs and trashing their peers with cryptic language that adults can’t understand let alone control. However, it is unrealistic to think that these “agencies” can truly be prepared to handle new technology as it develops. If for example, lets say as the World Wide Web was developing our government decided they needed to set standards for the written text and the imagery allowed before access to view and post was given to our society. How long would it take our government to come to agreement on these guidelines? I’m sure that by the time certain guidelines had passed government standards, scientist would have developed new technology and the standards just passed would be out of date.
What if these guidelines were strictly for the United States, then would U.S. web users be allowed to access foreign sites not governed by the same set of rules and regulations? If some other countries choose to not go through a lengthy rules and guidelines process, their society would become more technologically advanced with regards to the web then ours. Also, how could the government possibly foreshadow certain needs for guidelines until they are faced with the trials and tribulations of people utilizing the technology in question? When the web was first being developed, I imagine the government officials were clueless to it and its capabilities and I’m sure the scientist who created the web never imagined that child molesters would utilize it to prey on victims. I feel that no “agency” can adequately be prepared to tackle new technology without withholding that technology to society for lengthy amounts of time. The cost to research the technology and develop guidelines would be outrageous and by the time they were at least partially prepared, new technology would have come along and posed new obstacles to the current guidelines. I think that “technological determinism” is inevitably going to be a part of a technologically advanced society.
2. The internet empowers many writers whose words would never have had exposure before. For instance, it was mentioned in class that many newspaper writers have blogs and that they can often post on their blogs information that the editor cut. We as readers are also empowered because we can easily access information that wasn’t available by these writers before the internet existed. The power can belong to anyone who can navigate themselves through the internet, from the blogs of established writers to twelve year olds with extensive blogs about who their latest crush is. Anyone can gain power over the written word on the internet and even though that offers great new outlets and available information it also can be very dangerous that anyone can become so powerful. Teenagers often use their blogs to ridicule one another, using their empowerment of the written word to hurt others. Also, with so many people empowered and writing about every inch of the spectrum of every possible topic, we are bombarded with information. How do we know whose written word is legitimate and whose is nothing more than hot air. I could easily set up a fancy website, falsify my credentials and write about all kinds of topics I know nothing about and fool many people into believing my work is creditable.
3. According to Heidegger’s essay the four causes are basically the matter out of which it occurs, the shape it takes, the end result and what brings about the finished product. He goes on to describe “Telos” as the matter and the aspect co-responsible for the final product. I believe that it is part 4, causa efficiens, what brings about the finished product that is where the responsibility lies. For example, we can all start with the same topic of writing but the shape and finished product depends on the person writing about the topic. As mentioned in question two the internet can be full of irresponsible writers posing to be knowledgeable about their part 3, their finished product, but it is the person writing, part 4, whom is responsible for the finished product.
4. I believe that technology has certainly made writing more efficient. I can’t imagine the time it took to make a newspaper article in colonial times, with the old printing press. Even writing papers with pen or pencil as a child was by far inefficient; when you made a mistake you had to erase it and many times you had to start all over. With computers you can not only erase anything with a push of a button, you can also rearrange ideas with cutting and pasting. Computers allow for fast production and reproduction of written work.
5. Huxley’s quote on page 81, states that the world of literature is one that deals with aspects of human life, like love and hate, silliness and despair. When rereading this quote I immediately thought that he could have easily been talking about the internet being an outlet for all of these human aspects. We can utilize the internet to find love or rant about our dislikes. We can join chat rooms and discuss commonalities, “shared language” with someone thousands of miles away. If writing is represented by these many human traits then the electronic environment of the internet is an outlet or a means of sharing and expressing these traits.
The essay later covers Huxley’s belief that literature and science are two separate entities, with literature being “ego-centered” and science as unbiased. The internet would be a good rebuttal example to his theory. The internet was created by science and grows and expands because of technological and scientific breakthroughs. It is all a series of numbers and codes that make this outlet for writing possible. The search engine Google is basically a scientific program created with the intent that it would be used by society to search the world wide web for all those human aspects Huxley contributed to being the world of literature. You can Google, ways to find both love or nuclear physics topics. The creation of the internet and the use of the internet show that the science and the literary worlds intermingle everyday.
Allow me to preface my posting by saying that I am have a relatively easy going style when it comes to these kind of postings. Essentially, I have a very "keep it simple" philosophy. I guess my writing becomes a victim of technology when writing on portals, blogs, etc. Anyway, here it goes.
1). I feel Heilbroner is correct in that technologies are unleashed with very few guidelines to lead their direction. When thinking about the emergence of email, I remember hearing the dos and dont's of email etiquette from my more email experienced friend. Because I was given these guidelines early in my email stage, I have since paid close attention to my email tone, spelling, use of formal language, and even punctuation and capitalization. These are the "social" guidelines of this electronic community. And even those these guidelines are widely known, most choose to ignore them. What's to say that the same would not occur if guidelines for other electronic / technology forms were present?
I also can't help but wonder, with the emergence of new technology, who decides what the guidelines should be? How can one thought be correct? When baking soda was created, do you think people knew that it was going to be used for baking, odor control or even whitening of one's teeth? What should baking soda be used for? And if guidelines for baking soda are established are we limiting future potential uses?
2). I feel in almost all forms of communication, the power mostly falls in the hands of the receiver. But most of the time, we are writing towards an intended receiver. With the introduction ot technology, many new receivers can now have access to your writing. We have all been in situations where our email, which was intended towards one person, gets forwarded to many individuals. Or, when your email message is altered. The receiver decides how the message is interpretted and the same holds true in the electronic community.
Power in the electronic community is especially interesting because it is constantly shifting. Today, the youth control the Internet and I am not sure that was the intention when this medium was invented.
4). Of course writing, in general, is more efficient with technology, but it is better? Yes, multiple copies of a piece can be produced with ease, multiple readers can review a piece simultaneously, and editing can occur faster then ever before. However, part of me wonders if our ideas are less rich as a result of this technology. All too ofteb, I have fallen victim to sending an email before I had completely thought out my idea. I also think presentations are weaker as a result of computer programs like powerpoint. Students have reduced their presentation ideas to three bulleted points on a screen. Is this really better? Efficient, yes. Better, I'm not completely convinced.
I'm not sure where this posting went ... but here it is, raw and unedited.
Hello, this is Bill from class; I forgot my blog password and it’s being “mailed” to me as we speak (call me impatient but it’s taken more then an hour...).
Anyways, here are my comments for the questions from this week:
1. I think that Heilbroner has it partially correct. Writing technologies have been emerging relatively quickly (such as blogs and wikis) and so the guidelines and rules that govern them have developed from quick observation and/or learned error. Other relatively-older writing technologies such as email have a much more stringent set of rules because a governing structure has been given time to develop.
Are governing structures rigid and permanent? In this technologically evolving society, it’s an impossible expectation. Therefore, if we cannot predict what is to come tomorrow, how we develop a set of detailed rules? As a result, does not all technology still subject to evolution contain a raw aspect to it? And on the same line, does not anything that deals with communication fall into the same basic rules?
2. I would agree with Hans Jonas in that technology is a “species of power.” Those who possess the capital and/or the knowledge have the power (whether rightfully attained or not) to place restrictions, manipulate usage, and influence others. Technology enhances and better equips us to perform a task; those who own it or master it have the upper hand (though capital has become less a player in past years…).
Much like any kind of power, writing technologies can be used wrongly. A blog can be used to distract, defame, or manipulate a public as can a website be used to shuttle across an ill-mannered agenda. Now that capital becomes less of a player in technology (we all have basic access now), the skilled computer guru with an agenda can pose a formidable adversary.
4. I guess it depends on what you mean by efficiency. Technology has greatly improved writing efficiency, as in words per second. People can communicate at such rapid and effective rate that it makes communication ten years ago seem extremely antiquated.
But if you mean efficiency in terms of quality words per second, I think technology slows that down. People today worry more of the quickness of the message that they take little time to consider its craft. Efficiency of time has destroyed efficiency of quality and therefore, we may send fast messages but do they hold the potential they could?
Post a Comment
<< Home