Growing Pains?
What socio-cultural shifts might have precipitated the invention of the press?
According to historian Elizabeth Eisenstein (Elwell, 2013) the impermanence of scribal records is one significant factor that lead to the change in the way information was documented. Unless records were stored, or buried in jars, they generally were lost within a few generations. In order to preserve the documents for any length of time they would need to be copied by hand, a long, slow process that was frequently riddles with transcription errors. As a result, many documents were simply not copied and lost. The printing press of the 1450s made duplication easier and afforded greater quantity with fewer errors. However, according to Murray (2000), printed materials were still used predominantly by the elite (clergy, scholars, aristocrats) as the majority of society (90%) was still illiterate.
Print shops were quickly established in major European cities. Printed materials were requested by individuals for personal purposes, as well as by the church and the state. Seeing the potential for profit, printers were soon looking to expand the technology and increase profits by reaching larger markets. The clergy and scholar were traditionally creators of printed materials (manuscripts) and thus able to control the content of the manuscript and who could read it. The printing press removed this power from the scholar/priest and replaced it with more democratic bodies to create and disseminate information.
From a historical perspective, the move to print is not necessarily the cause of the change to printed books but rather a reflection of the changes that were already occurring in society. Trade with countries outside Europe was becoming more frequent. China had been using rag paper for since the Han Dynasty (202BC-220 AD) and this technology slowly spread across the Muslim world and finally to Europe. The squeeze press, originally invented for winemaking, was crucial to the rise of the press as this was what was modified by Gutenberg to create his press. The concept for Gutenberg’s metal type was the block print which had been around for centuries but was seldom used due to its time consuming carving process. Finally, the Black Death which occurred from 1346-53 devastated Europe and took about 150 years from which to recover from it (Wikipedia). This resulted in the survivors inheriting the property of those who did not survive and becoming richer. With more disposable income they could buy more clothing which eventually would become rags and used for paper production. The Black Death also killed off many of the scribes which made scribe services rare and expensive (Butler, 2007).
What are the effects of this new technology on today? Are Erasmus’ musings upon the printed book,
“To what corner of the world do they not fly, these swarms of new books? It may be that one here and one there contributes something worth knowing, but the very multitude of them is hurtful to scholarship, because it creates a glut, and even in good things, satiety is most harmful;… The fact is that no small part of the trouble comes from these fellows’ (printers) unbridled licence. Thy fill the world with books, not just trifling things (such as I write, perhaps), but stupid, ignorant, slanderous, scandalous, raving, irreligious and seditious books, and the number of them is such that even the valuable publications lose their value” (Mann Phillips, 1967)
applicable to the internet? The computer/internet has transformed society just like the printing press did, and there are those who voice the same kind of concerns about the change and its impact on society and culture. Are these grumblings the same sort of growing pains the printing press elicited or is there truly cause for concern?
Butler. C. (2007). FC74: The invention of the printing press and its effects [Website]. Retrieved from
http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/west/11/FC74
Elwell, F.W. (2013). Socio-cultural Systems: Principles of Structure and Change. Edmonton, AB: AU Press, Athabasca University.
Mann Phillips, M. (1967). Erasmus on His Times: A Shortened Version of the ‘Adages’ of Erasmus. London: Cambridge University Press.
Murray, D.E. (2000). Changing technologies, changing literacy communities? Language Learning & Technology, 4 (2), 43-58.
Image source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Wood_letterpress_blocks.jpg
Thanks for your post Susan!
[…]applicable to the internet? The computer/internet has transformed society just like the printing press did, and there are those who voice the same kind of concerns about the change and its impact on society and culture. Are these grumblings the same sort of growing pains the printing press elicited or is there truly cause for concern?
Great question… we should ask as well, how one-sided were those concerns, and how one-sided are now? Is it a “great, but…” the same as a “bad, however…”? Let me give you an example of what I mean. Self-publication has had a very interesting impact, on the one hand, you find horrible DIY covers. On the other, by removing the gatekeepers (editors, for example) in this process, there have been incredible (as in hard-to-believe) yet popular new genres.
And sometimes, something like this happens: “Self-publishing lets women break book industry’s glass ceiling, survey finds“, which makes me think that the value of technology (despite its problems) can go way beyond itself. What do you think?
I totally agree that technology made it possible to publish your own books with a click of a button. The platform developers such as apple, Windows, Amazon, and others are seeking more content and eBooks on their devices to generate more revenue. Having a middleman to publish the book is no more required.
Hi Ernesto,
I would definitely agree with you about the value of technology. I think there is always going to be the ‘horrible DIY covers’ but it is wonderful to see how groups who never had a voice before are able to contribute in a significant manner on a local level and/or on a global level. Like some of the readings stated, the Internet is taking the power out of the hands of the publisher or the traditional seats of power and putting it into the hands of everyone. One of the issues that will need to addressed however will be cyberbullying.
Ah, the continuation of the good old Harlequin Romance novels lives on or as we called them Bust Rippers. They all follow an uncomplicated formula plot and multitudes of women would gobble them up as ‘escape literature’. Those that write them have a different idea of success ($$$) or accomplishment, knowing they could never author quality ‘high’ literature.
If self publishing gives women more opportunities so be it, I’m certainly all for it, but I wonder how the statistics in the Guardian article were collected. Many writers of this genre used a nom de plume (pseudonyms) to hide their identity (including gender).
Susan quotes Mann Phillips ” …the very multitude of them is hurtful to scholarship, because it creates a glut”. This has been the downfall of many academic publishers, so much so that they will rearrange a textbook’s chapters so as to sell more revised editions. The selling of second hand textbooks hurt them dearly. Now technology provides academic research online. Some educational publishers have narrowed their booklist concentration on only the expensive titles such as medical and law publications hoping to control those rights (even online access) and show their investors some level of profits to stay afloat.
Terry
I think you have raised some excellent questions. Throughout the readings it has been noted that each technological change has come with a great deal of suspicion and critique. Looking back we can see that things did in fact change, but from our vantage point the changes were not as bad as many were anticipating. It is difficult to predict how digital technology will change our understanding of literacy. Although I think it is safe to assume that changes are coming, or maybe have already arrived. I think we need to be aware that technology is changing our language and literacy in the same ways that the other developments changed it, but that we should also be aware that the changes are not going to be as disastrous as we think.
Catherine