Mechanization & Beyond
Writing Mechanization & Beyond
Writing is a multidimensional process. To comprehend various philosophies about writing and its existence, in my view, can be determine by its components which can be labelled further as components of writing. The components are the process of interiorization (Ong, 2002), writing technologies, and skills that are needed to understand.
- Process of Interiorization (Ong, 2002) – internal component of writing – result of cognitive process originated by social environment, personal observation and critical thinking
- Writing Technologies and spaces(Bolter , 2001)
- Skills, this component can be divided into two sub components
3.1. Organizing interiorized thoughts into perceptible form
3.2. Skills desired to use modern writing technologies (Bolter, 2001)
Writing (interiorization) needs means to transfer and preserve knowledge and thoughts as Christina Haas (1996, p.4) has said “Writing is situated in the material world in a number of ways. It always occurs in a material setting, employs material tools, and results in material artifacts” (cited in (Bolter, 2001)). Also Ong (2002) has professed that “writing makes ‘words’ appear similar to things because we think of words as the visible marks signaling words to decoders: we can see and touch such inscribed words in texts and books”(p.11)
Means for writing or technologies for writing has grouped into pre industrial and post-industrial periods. Mechanization is a part of development of writing technologies. In general, mechanization denotes to the process of substituting human particularly or animal by machines (Wikipedia) whereas the term “mechanized writing is generally thought to begun with the printing press” (course contents). Writing mechanization is a part of the evolution process whose roots connects to the ancient writing/drawing. Mechanized writing or machine printing is completely different from the process used in Gutenberg’s workshop (Printing Yesterday and Today, 2015). McLuhan (1972) called printing the first example of the assembly line and mass production (cited in Bolter, 2001). New technologies (after industrial revolution) have revolutionized printing. “By modern standards, Gutenberg’s printing process may seem slow and tedious; compositors put type together by hand, and a skilled compositor could assemble 2,000 characters or letters in an hour. A computer can arrange the same number of characters in about two seconds” (Printing Yesterday and Today)
Mechanization has brought speed of processing and increase in productivity that has risen the knowledge resources and resource accessibility. “The development of printing has made it possible for books, newspapers, magazines, and other reading materials to be produced in great numbers, and it plays an important role in promoting literacy among the masses” (history of Printing, 2015)
Since writing has changed human cognizance (Ong, 2002) whereas mechanization has changed the learning culture and has made knowledge reachable and thus created new opportunities and business options. Inshort, mechanization has acted as catalyst and cultivated economic and social change by increasing book production, lowering books’ cost (History of Printing, 2015) knowledge
Furthermore, Leslie White envisioned impact of technology and articulated her thoughts as ‘we may view a cultural system as a series of three horizontal strata: the technological layer on the bottom, the philosophical on the top, the sociological stratum in between… The technological system is basic and primary (as cited in Chandler, 2014). I think technology is an independent fuction that sets the flexible boundaries for a society and for a culture to grow and that has brought linear social and economic change (first economic). Technology is meant for change that is what we imagined and what we wanted to do, we invented it.
References:
Bolter , J. D. (2001). Writing Space: Computer, Hypertext and Remediation of the Print. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Chandler, D. (2014, March). http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/tecdet/tdet03.html. Retrieved from visual-memory.co.uk: http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/tecdet/tdet03.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_printing. (2015). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_printing
Ong, W. J. (2002). Orality and Literacy: Technologizing of the word. London: Routledge.
www.hrc.utexas.edu/educator/modules/gutenberg/books/printing/. (2015). Retrieved from www.hrc.utexas.edu: http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/educator/modules/gutenberg/books/printing/
Wonderful conclusion Rakshanda. As technology was intended for change and change often battles nostalgia amongst the public, your conclusion serves as an excellent reminder that the changes that come about with technology are not only natural but also desired. I also think that I disagree with Bolter in his notion that the admiration of a manuscript is a negation of technology for the tools that are used to create a manuscript may also be classified as technology.
As Ong (2001) points out, written discourse (both in printed and digital form) becomes detached from the author and our mind may indeed admire that the display afforded by technology whether it is a film with special effects or a beautiful manuscript written with a feather.
Bolter , J. D. (2001). Writing Space: Computer, Hypertext and Remediation of the Print. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ong, W. J. (2002). Orality and Literacy: Technologizing of the word. London: Routledge.
Thanks, I agree that writing is a technology, a vital invention for communication, where as writing technologies are the modes of mechanized writing to sport writing spaces. Emerging technologies for writing have been refashioning (Bolter, 2001) old writing spaces.
Bolter , J. D. (2001). Writing Space: Computer, Hypertext and Remediation of the Print. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Wonderful conclusion Rakshanda. As technology was intended for change and change often battles nostalgia amongst the public, your conclusion serves as an excellent reminder that the changes that come about with technology are not only natural but also desired. I also think that I disagree with Bolter in his notion that the admiration of a manuscript is a negation of technology for the tools that are used to create a manuscript may also be classified as technology.
As Ong (2001) points out, written discourse (both in printed and digital form) becomes detached from the author and our mind may indeed admire that the display afforded by technology whether it is a film with special effects or a beautiful manuscript written with a feather.
In this sense, I could never understand why the resale of textbooks is permitted. In essence the written word or expression is the work of art and knowledge that is given by the person who creates it to another. If that book is further resold then the first buyer is therefore receiving the knowledge and the hard work of the artist or writer for free. In a world where no copyright exists or the author agrees to transcopyright (Nelson, 1997) in advance and other avenues for revenue exist perhaps this may be acceptable. With the current state of affairs, however, I find it more fair to writers that digital books cannot be resold. As a student, I do appreciate the existence of resources like social book – not only for the affordable price, but for the affordance of expressing admiration for parts of a text and the experience of simultaneous reading, reflection, discussion and silent conversation with others about the contents of a book.
Bolter , J. D. (2001). Writing Space: Computer, Hypertext and Remediation of the Print. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ong, W. J. (2002). Orality and Literacy: Technologizing of the word. London: Routledge.
Nelson, T. H.(1991) Xanalogical Structure, Needed Now More than Ever: Parallel Documnts, Deep Links to Content, Deep Versioning, and Deep Re-Use. Project Xanadu. Retrieved from:
http://cs.brown.edu/memex/ACM_HypertextTestbed/papers/60.html