All Communication is Virtual: Reflections on “Writing Spaces” and “Orality and Literacy” (Module 3)
While reading “Writing Spaces: Computers, Hypertext and the Remediation of Print “, I was most impressed by Bolter’s (2001) notion that writing has always been virtual in the sense that it enabled the imagination and discussion of abstract ideas amongst people who are apart geographically or living in different times. In this sense, there is no major shift from textbooks to digital reading environments, for what we currently refer to as “virtual” had already been virtual many years. Perhaps our ability to record our thoughts and ideas on physical objects gave us the false impression that knowledge and communication can ever be something other than virtual. I would also extend this idea and argue that all communication (including oral communication) is virtual and abstract. If we return to the philosophical questions of ‘Do you hear what I hear? Do you see what I see? Does your definition of a word generate a feeling entirely different from the feelings I experience when I hear or read this word?’ we can immediately become reminded that any communication is our own form of virtual reality which is essentially true to ourselves and the virtual reality of another will always remain unknown to us. Although technological advancements in the area of brain research constantly challenge the notion that we can not see others’ thoughts, even when another’s thoughts are projected on a screen for example, we still interpret these thoughts through our own virtual medium of communication enabled by our eyes, our “lens” and our previous experiences formulating the reaction and emotional associations that accompany perception. Ong (1982) notes that we prefer to hear verbal reports that parallel what we experience or can arrange to experience. In our perception of another’s verbal communication, we arrange information in a way that fits our experience and thus our communication is virtual and never quite tangible for either party.
Communication is an attempt to paint, write, display, project or pass on ideas from one mind to another. To this day, true communication has been and still remains impossible therefore orality and literacy are our best attempts to defy the barrier to true communication through virtual realities such as oral stories, spoken words, written symbols and now digital images symbols, sounds, images and text. These virtual spaces for imagination and an attempt to join minds in a space outside of our n mind manifest themselves in the form of computers, printed text, audio recordings, unrecorded sound and oral stories. As unreal and virtual as all communing may be, it is perhaps our most important legacy and responsibility. Whichever form this communication it takes, there are three things that virtual communication can be evaluated on. One is the accessibility of communicated ideas by people of remote locations or levels of class in a particular society. The second is the durability of such communication and the ability for the communication to be read by generations of the future. Last, but not least is the ability of the medium o virtual space where the communication is manifested to remain authentic to the original idea of the author or the communicator and this factor is best evaluated by the creator of the message.
Bolter, J. D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Routledge
Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen
I feel that Writing Space neatly and tidily follows where Orality and Literacy left off. I only read the three chapters that we were required to read in Ong’s book. I think what you are referring to is Ong’s statement that literacy itself is an unnatural act. Ong, I believe, was referring to Plato’s observation that literacy destroys memory and social contact required of orality.
One of my favourite quote from Ong is that humans have the ability to make the unnatural, natural. Literacy is such a core part of our every day existence that its difficult to imagine how it could have once been considered an unnatural act. Along the same lines, music is such a big part of our lives, its is difficult to imagine how a live orchestra could be considered an unnatural act. Chandler states that “… our increasing dependence on mechanical devices and machine-like features of current human behaviour as evidence of an increasing symbiosis of human being and machine.” Imagine such symbiosis in context to the act of singing, or sign language.
Perhaps it is difficult to see at the present time, but there may be a point in time where virtual communications also falls within that category. I do not think many of us consider virtual communication a natural act similarly to literacy and music. But I feel that day is not far away. It is less a matter of choice but rather a matter of direction. It seems we are at the mercy of the ebb and flow of society. Issac Bashevis Singer states “we have to believe in free will. We’ve got no choice” (found that in one of Chandler’s essays).
Anyways, getting back to your post. You had mentioned the authentic meaning belonging to the creator of the message. At the mid point of this course, I’ve lost track of where I read this. But one of the course authors mentions that the written text relinquishes control of the interpretation of the text once the book leaves the author’s hands. Meaning is now extracted from the reader’s pre-conceptions and thoughts and the original author has no control over this as his or her written text has no ability to defend itself.
I would like to comment on your statement, “true communication has been and still remains impossible”, which reflects the challenges in developing the relation between people. The mass literacy, modern communication, and technology are attempts to connect people with each other, people to things, and things to things. I am sure you have read about internet of things (IoT) technology that is the new trend in the technology world. Well, for any communication there should be a purpose. Without a purpose any attempt like communication would lose its meaning. The purpose is different from person to person. However, if the purpose would somehow be shared between groups of people, then, communication would be meaningful; subsequently, communication would be more effective. I agree with your comment about how communication is a challenge to fulfil, according to Lerch (1964), communication “is merely part of the, ancient human story and the endless cavalcade of human activity” (p. 150). Theorist found that we live in a mass communication period that uses technology and a more sophisticated media to, “influence the opinions, behavior, and actions of the receiving individual or group” as the over-all purpose of communicating (Lerch, 1964, p. 151). As a result, true communication won’t be reached because there is no limit for the human ambition and advancement in many disciplines. Our needs vary from generation to another, and so do the communication needs. There is an idea I read in one of the MET courses that argues on how far do we need to communicate? I think keeping a space from over communicating is essential to maintain identities.
Bassam
References:
Lerch, J. H. (1964). Communications study: An illusion of purpose? College Composition and Communication, 15(3), 149-152
I totally agree. We perceive the world through our senses and we process with our brain. It is true that every one of us views the world in a different manner and truth is constructed differently for each individual. Yet we live together and we share the environment, culture, and believes. This interaction causes our beliefs and understanding of things to be somewhat similar. Therefore the assumption that we can relate to other brains understanding can be most of the time correct. The authenticity of the source in the digital space is an important factor of making the communication successful. Yet the digital space capability to carry the full perceived emotions of communication plays a major role in the process. Examples can be the smiley faces 🙂 that give the text a joyful spirit and the video conferencing that transmits our body language to the other side.
It is so true that the symbolic writing requires a close relationship with the interpreter in order to make meaning of it and the more layers associated with the written text, the denser the meaning. In fact, the personal, cultural and universal connection with the symbol can make it more difficult for everyone to arrive at the same meaning. For this reason, I feel that the iconic and pictorial written language has a greater affinity for communication extending beyond time and geographical borders. I believe that this form of communication closely borders a universal language that can even extend beyond the oral language. For example, some of the very first illustrations of man appeared in cave art thousands of years ago such as the hunter holding a bow found in a Sahara cave dating back 6000BC. Similar art work is found throughout the world and at different times in history; however, there is no ambiguity that these all picture represents the iconic bipedal human figure. Although starting off as artwork for cave man to past time, these icons now play an important role in all levels of development for the human civilization as they are intimately connected with the storage and communication of information essential to the physical and spiritual well-being of a community. Now the cave man drawing of a man has been transformed into the iconic stick man. Consisting of a circle for a head and straight lines for the body, arms and legs, he has been created by social scientist Otto Neurath and Vienna artist Gerd Arntz as part of an Internal System of Typographic Picture Education, also known as ISOTYPE. The original goal was to help people understand social and economic facts concisely, efficiently and effectively. With a minimum usage of words, quantitative and qualitative information can be easily recognized by grownups and children across all cultures. But his system became the closest attempt at a universal language where now the stick man has the ability to communicate danger, washroom locations and activities like crossing the street across the world.