Module 1 Post: Papyrus, Codex and Cyberspace
Module 1 Post: Papyrus, Codex and Cyberspace by Daniel Chow, 504 words
Twenty Five years ago, I was driving a 1974 Dodge Dart. I remember hearing from many sources how the hydrogen powered fuel cell would do to the internal combustion engine (ICE) what the the ICE did to the steam engine. Pundits proclaimed from atop a soapbox that by 2020, the ICE would be a museum piece. Applying historical contexts in an attempt to predict modern outcomes can be a misleading adventure. Attempting to compare what the codex did to the papyrus roll to what cyberspace may do to printed work is invalid without considering the current socio-economic climate. So too is the question “is there any evidence that graduating students …. are better informed or educated than students 20 or 30 years ago”.
The Cambridge Forum audio was recorded in 1999 at a time where the World Wide Web was in its infancy. Google had started only a year earlier. Youtube was nowhere in sight. Smartphones and tablets would not appear for almost another decade. Yet O’Donnell and Engell were quick to dismiss questions regarding their prediction that cyberspace would replace the codex as the codex replaced papyrus rolls. In the article entitled “Democracy and Education”, Willinsky provides a possible explanation. “The public reads the bottom line. They act on that shortsightedness … They act on that without putting the study into context” (Wilkinson, 2002). History must be studied to avoid repeating mistakes. But history cannot be used to predict modern outcomes without a modeling the predictions in light of modern day variables relating to socio-economic conditions.
For the same reason, any comparison of the effect of cyberspace on the quality of students over a span of thirty years is invalid. O’Donnell elegantly recognizes that the very question itself is invalid. He states that students today (1999) must navigate a knowledge society where much of the information is simply not correct. He recognizes that students today must learn the skills to navigate through this knowledge-rich society which is a skill that was not needed thirty years ago. On the other hand, Engell steps back much farther and speaks of the difference between pre-written society where oral communication was the only method. He explains how written text essentially changed the core purpose of education. Rote memorization was required less when the information is stored in a book. He moves on to describe the ubiquitous and open nature of information in cyberspace today. Complementing this idea Willinsky claim that open source availability of academic research is the key to democracy in education.
It is a rather romantic idea that cyberspace may one day replace the written text in the same way the codex replaced the papyrus. Perhaps one needs to consider that it is technology itself that is responsible for increasing the number of printed books in existence at a lower price point as well. It has only been a few hundred years, but it is hard to imagine any technology that can replace the printed text in the same completeness that the papyrus was replaced.
Willinsky, J. (2002). Education and Democracy: The Missing Link May Be Ours. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 367-392
O’Donnell, J. (1999). Cambridge Forum. Audio recording.
I couldn’t agree more. After listening to the audio file everything seemed possible now 🙂
Below is my summary on the radio interview:
With new technologies there is always lose and gain. Even though when technology is presented to us at first we only learn about the benefits and the feature and the lose is hidden for us to discover later on.
Resistance to change is obvious when any technology is presented. Humans use technology willingly and understand the advantages and disadvantage of it. There is always a resistance to change even at the time of print technology of words
Writing effects humans socially. The way we meet and interact is becoming different and maybe less intimate.
The major challenge is to integrate existing methods with new technologies. Maybe by giving more than one option to the user to allow smoother transition. This can cause increase in budget and other constrains.
It is very interesting how until today technology and its benefit to education is still not meeting the expectations
Codex and rolls and now digital which may replace codex. It is very interesting how no focus is made on the digital capability of text being placed in a virtual space. How it can be part of a collaborative space and an swift update mechanism to the text itself.
The written word allowed us to outsource our knowledge which made our brain less worried about memorising information and when needed can be simply found online.
It is evidence that new technology such as Hello and F2F is used within its context either virtual typing space or voice communication.
I am looking forward to see how technology will change the way we communicate. Sometimes I feel that there must be a better way than text, speech, or video to pass on an idea. There my be a way to connect brains directly so they can communicate cognitively 🙂
Hi Nidal,
Thank you for providing the brief summary above.
I think your last point is fascinating and something I’ve been reflecting on for a while. Communication follows two qualities; it is made of discrete parts and they are arranged in a linear way.
The discreteness is a product of language. We use words to show concepts and connections between them. Each word means something unique to each person through socialization. So for example, a concept like police officer in a white suburban neighbourhood will mean something entirely different than in a predominantly black urban neighbourhood. The repeated use of a concept is given meaning in its context. In a more academic case, the term ‘god’ used by Spinoza means something entirely different than what it would mean in a church. So, these discrete words we communicate do not communicate the depth, meaning and interconnectedness in how we understand them.
As for linear, consider how you have an idea. It’s not like a sentence. Each part of the idea does not conform to a grammatical structure. Rather, you experience the connection between pieces of information all at once like you would see the corners on a three dimensional object or how you are aware of your surroundings in a busy shopping mall. It hits you all at once. So better to think of as a idea as a web of sensations. The problem then is that most communication can only try to translate the complexity into a single linear set of words.
So can there ever really be a way of transcending verbal or written communication. I don’t think so. Not if we are trying to express logical and complex ideas. To really understand another person, you would have to be that other person. That all said, it is pretty impressive how we have made our languages increasingly sophisticated to communicate effectively.
Coming to Daniel’s point about digital media and print. I really liked the progression of scroll to codex to modern book. The media definitely affected how it was perceived and used. But is digital media that kind of change? I would suggest we’re moving there. The difference between the physical book and an ebook or web-based article is pretty significant. With new media, hypertext really changes how the text is read and searched. I often follow links to find similar articles when reading the news. Likewise, in ebooks, I’m happy to use a search function to find a point I read earlier. Although the technology is far from perfect yet.
The “resistance to change” or the status quo is an incredible powerful force. If only it obeys the law of conservation of energy, then we could convert that energy into useful power. :\
As for another form of communication, do you remember Google Wave? Google attempted to “reinvent” the world of digital communications. Google Wave was a product developed in Australia. Like all other Google products including Gmail and Docs, you had to request an invite to try it out when it was in its beta testing phase.
The premise of Google Wave is that ELM (Electronic mail) is an old technology that has existed for 40 years. With advances in digital communication, Google attempted to make the perfect communication system for the millennium. It was supposed to solve all the conflicts with email, integrate phone, text, email, video chat into one single platform. Well lets just say that it didn’t work.
But that is OK. Companies like Google needs to spend time and money trying out new ideas. Failure in this case is simply part of the innovation process.
Hi Daniel!
I like your closing statement:
“It is a rather romantic idea that cyberspace may one day replace the written text in the same way the codex replaced the papyrus. Perhaps one needs to consider that it is technology itself that is responsible for increasing the number of printed books in existence at a lower price point as well. It has only been a few hundred years, but it is hard to imagine any technology that can replace the printed text in the same completeness that the papyrus was replaced.”
Interestingly enough, to back up your argument a bit, there have been scholars pointing out the similarities between the shift from papyrus to codex and between codex to digital reading environments. This is a quote from Roger Chartier in Frost’s “Adoption of the Codex Book: Parable of a New Reading Mode”
“The only change comparable to what is occurring now is perhaps the invention of the codex, which took place in the second or third century after Christ. …In both cases you have a transformation of the structure of the support of the text and a transformation of the gesture, technologies, categories required by this structure, given to the text in the reader’s mind.”
Which leads me to ask: In which sense the codex replaced the papyrus? in which sense the current reading environments would replace the codex? Are we talking about cognitive affordances? materiality? operation? others?
What do you think?
http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/bpg/annual/v17/bp17-10.html
Very interesting question Ernesto. I guess the codex replaced the papyrus and scroll in its physical form. And aside from adding features like page numbering, contents and indexing, the data likely remained largely the same. So from your given list of choices, I would say that the differences are mostly operational / functional. Though one could definately argue that a codex / binded book may allow more cognitive affordances given the greater ability to index and locate information not to mention a codex is simply easier to use and takes up less space.
I speak in part from a personal point of view (don’t we all)? I do much of my reading online. I cannot say that I prefer online reading to a book or vise versa. But I can assure you that I cannot let go of the book format no matter how close technology comes to replacing it. Now the Kindle Fire has a screen that resembles the look of paper. This reminds me of that U2 song “Even Better Than The Real Thing”. Is it possible?
My questions in response to yours (open to everyone of course), is this new generation that grew up with devices like tablets and cell phones, will they be the ones to finally lay to rest the binded book? Perhaps “lay to rest” is too powerful of a statement. Perhaps the binded book will become a novelty, sometime that you would see as a display piece enclosed in glass as you walk into a library with empty shelves? I hope not.
Well, I certainly don’t have the answers, just more questions… and a few links that might give some perspective:
http://smarterthanyouthink.net/book/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/why-digital-natives-prefer-reading-in-print-yes-you-read-that-right/2015/02/22/8596ca86-b871-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_story.html
Hi Daniel;
“History must be studied to avoid repeating mistakes. But history cannot be used to predict modern outcomes without a modeling the predictions in light of modern day variables relating to socio-economic conditions.” I agree that by reviewing the past we have a better chance of not repeating the same mistakes. I can also make informed decisions on what improvements are possible, what changes should be addressed as we move forward.
“He [O’Donnell] states that students today (1999) must navigate a knowledge society where much of the information is simply not correct. ” This reminds me of my days working reference desk in a public library where funding for computers was in it’s early stages. I was searching for information on South Africa’s apartheid. Government publications (Canadian, British and American) were very ‘dry’, matter of fact on the subject. The real knowledge came from eye witness reporting from reliable journalists. So even adults armed with research tools had difficulties in getting to the facts. I imagine there was a similar scenario at the outbreak of Ebola.
“Rote memorization was required less when the information is stored in a book.” You may have heard of the quote said to be connected to Einstein: When asked for his telephone number “Why should I memorize something I can so easily get from a book?”
Terry