READER LIBERATION!
The Fabrication of Drones - Using Machines to Battle the Formation of Machines
I want to comment, briefly, on J.L. Lemke's article "Metamedia Literacy: Transforming Meanings and Media." Finally I see someone writing about a very serious problem: the lack of critical thought appearing in education. Lemke compares the "curricular learning paradigm" with the "interactive learning paradigm" (84). He argues that the curricular learning paradigm, found in today's schools, is where "someone else decides what you need to know and will arrange for you to learn it in a fixed order on a fixed schedule" (84). This results in a "common curriculum" (86). (Can we say standardized tests and learning? Actually, let's call this it the common curriculum cult or the fabrication of productive, passive drones…)
I agree with Lemke that "we want people who are at least a little critical and skeptical about information" and that they have the ability to decipher the reliability of the information being taught (85). In the interactive learning paradigm, members of society can access information freely opposed to being imposed upon with a set of ideas in a confined setting (the classroom with a captive audience) (85). In such a free learning environment, one no longer remains subject to an "author's priorities, scope, and sequence…" (87). [Though, I will confess, this portion was at the bottom of my blog, but I moved it to the front because, as the author, I want to manipulate my readers into reading this first… Authors will forever be able to manipulate readers, maybe in even more subtle ways, when users have the impression that they are not being manipulated…]
As I will note below, however, such freedom to information has its own self-indulgent dangers. Lemke writes, "We can change reality [via technology] by acts of will or small motor commands - we can be sorcerers…" (90). In essence, we can play God. I remember this story about this guy and this gal called Adam and Eve. They were tempted to eat from the "Tree of Knowledge." And look what happened. [Whether you believe this happened or not, the moral of the "story" still stands…] Which is better? A blissfully ignorant life - the life of a slave or drone - OR one where humanity becomes God (or many gods). Which is more dangerous? Can we have a situation where we can choose to be one or the other - or should we simultaneously be a slave to a God and a God who has slaves?
The Individual vs. The Collective and Who Owns What
The notion of both a hybrid identity and expression offers a new perspective on owning space, especially when this space resides on the Web. Craig Stroupe provides good argument for the possibility for and potential of "visualizing English" in his article "Visualizing English: Recognizing the Hybrid Literacy of Visual and Verbal Authorship on the Web." With this notion of shared space for expression, contact zones develop between the individual and the collective body of society.
Stroupe writes that David Siegel describes a "new work paradigm" where "success depends less on the individual writer…and more upon the coordination of a team…" (14). Using Siegel, Stroupe infers that English Studies needs to reduce its high regard of "the individual" as a lone producer and as a symbol of authority when "Web-based communication makes verbal expertise only one among many forms of literacy…" [emphasis added] (14). I can see why English Studies praises the individual. The individual is identifiable. Names belong to work produced so that accountability and credit can be established. The individual can be rewarded and this induces competition.
English Studies can hardly be faulted for this psychology when it is the mentality of a capitalist society to credit the individual. (I do not, necessarily, find fault with competition - I think it can be a motivating force. After all, to remain "competitive" in society, I must master using the Web and its tools because it is becoming an essential part of succeeding in this technological culture. Competition has hardly ceased to exist, nor should it. Without something to fight for or compete against, for what should anyone strive?)
Stroupe does bring about an honest realization though: how often is an individual really an individual in the production of a text? Ideas from others find their way into the individual and it makes it appear the individual is the "original thinker." Works cited pages in documents written by only one author clearly represent the fact multiple voices DO appear in the work and in a way, allow for credit to be given to the other players.)
How will human psychology respond to this "new work paradigm" (shared space) since it certainly is a reality society faces with the advent of this technology? We all remember how teamwork seems to function in class: there is a leader and then there are followers. Within teams, there are always varying degrees of involvement and production, especially with competition entering the scene. How will this "work" be rewarded? And will every member of the team be rewarded equally? Who decides? Moreover, will the visual eventually gain more praise than verbal text? It certainly seems so. Big blocks of text (such as the ones I have here) are never preferred. So, will we see a continued hybrid form of expression or will we begin to see a shift of privileging other forms? (Essentially, privilege will always exist, just in different forms.) Faster is better… at least, that is what this technological society seems to privilege most.
The Problem of Self-Indulgence
What Stroupe really seems to want less of is English Studies' focus on elaborationism, which is based on the notion that higher forms of consciousness can only be achieved through formality in the reading/composing process (15). It appears that those who engage in "formality" appear impersonal and (unfairly or unreasonably) elevated due to standards set in the history of English Studies. Without "visualizing English" (or, what Stroupe seems to want: "visualizing one's arrogance"), one remains ignorant to their self-indulgence because it is rewarded in the current-day English Studies environment - one that is criticized for rejecting "difference" and multiple forms of expression.
Stroupe pits Peter Elbow against Elizabeth Castro to illustrate the benefits of Web expression. He does this by unfairly illustrating that Elbow's expressivism only maintains self-indulgence whereas Castro's method is expansive and results in enriched societal connections.
Of course, next to Castro, Elbow appears stuffy, out-dated, and unreasonable in terms of his call for intimacy with words, which Stroupe seems to paint as intimacy with self. After all, Castro offers helpful editing tools, options for creativity, and a heightened focus on audience, opposed to focus on self - definitely more attractive on first glance.
I must ask: why is focusing on self-improvement a negative thing, especially when it comes to the way one thinks? Elbow's method invites, and even requires, contradiction for growth as a thinker and writer (21). True acts of self-indulgence never take time to consider another perspective.
What I really find beneficial in Elbow's method is his focus on words talking to words, which argues against using visuals because they offer immediate, simple, and literal access to meaning (21). While Castro speaks of speed in terms of visuals (will a user be able to download or easily view images?) Elbow has a point - should access be so immediate? Should meaning be revealed so easily? After all, "only those who resist the expedient and who master what is difficult will achieve personal empowerment" (20). I'm not saying that visuals should not be used. Moreover, I realize that visuals can deepen meaning of text, especially when the connection between visual and text is not obvious. Instead, I caution Stroupe and others to not rush to dismiss what Elbow has to offer in terms of taking time to develop oneself.
Instead of discounting Elbow's focus on self-development, one might view Castro with a more critical eye. With Castro's web-based ideology, a focus on the self still occurs as the "Web-author is free to indulge in a breezy, self-conscious style" while the "Web user is free to go where s/he likes" (23). Such freedom is desirable, but might lead to further self-indulgence as one "gets to" cater to his/her own desires. Certainly appealing, but if everyone gets their way, what happens to the notion of conflict? Conflict motivates reaction thus growth between conflicting parties as they work to sort out differences. Sometimes, not getting one's way can be the best thing for the development of self --and-- society.
No comments:
Post a Comment