In the first two modules there was one major topic that seemed to come up repeatedly: the tendency for humans to either embrace or fight against evanescence in text (Ong, 2015). As we “evolve” culturally, technologically, and socially we seem to go through periods where evanescence goes in and out of fashion. I find it fascinating to wonder about why this is, particularly as I am currently researching artifactual literacies and what makes people decide whether or not they want to digitize or “immortalize” their language learning artifacts.
I feel like for the most part the matter of contention in the pro-evanescence group is the desire for aesthetic evanescence in the face of the explosion of modern technology. At the end of the Avengers: Age of Ultron movie, the robot Ultron tries to wipe out the human race in the name of eugenics. His attempts are thwarted by Vision, a robot created in his own image turned against him. While Ultron claims that his attempts to force humans to evolve was actually an effort to improve and effectively immortalize the human species, Vision retorts “A thing isn’t beautiful because it lasts” (Avengers Age of Ultron, 2015). This dichotomous vision (pun intended) of aesthetic living evanescence vs. efficient mechanical permanence harkens back to Plato’s criticism of written texts being too unnatural, mechanical, and overall detrimental to both discourse and the human mind (Ong, 2015).
What is truly interesting is that this dichotomy is now blurring as the very definition of an aesthetic evanescence is once again changing with the coming of the internet and modern technology. Things like YouTube videos, digital media downloads, and many other technologies are effectively combinations of both evanescence and permanence. Ong states that all sound is dynamic, yet impermanent… the moment that the sound leaves your lips it is no more; however, now we have video recordings, sound-bites, podcasts, and a variety of other media that turn this evanescence into pseudo-permanence. In this situation, does the aesthetic value still remain or does it disappear?
On the other side there are the people who are fighting for permanence and ultimately the use of technology as an extension of the biological human brain which doesn’t have the capacity to store the rapidly expanding amount of information in the knowledge economy. As O’Donnell and the CBC podcast argue in their commentary on the Great Library 2.0 that permanent texts allow us to navigate an increasingly transnational and complex world with fixed resources. Does this permanence lack aesthetic features? According to O’Donnell the permanence of texts, contrary to Plato’s worries, does not stymie dialogues and, in fact, encourages an increasing number of dialogues to take place.
The age of modern technology, however, is not quite as permanent as Ong and O’Donnell would have us believe. In the CBC podcast on the Library 2.0 they emphasize the fact that even though efforts are being made to make permanent records of both oral and written texts around the world, the main drivers behind these initiatives are private corporations. If something exists but you don’t have access to it, does it really exist? In this way even the permanent records of texts being collected by Google take a distinctly evanescent form.
I’d like to finish by bringing up the app Snapchat. In this app any post you make disappears shortly afterwards forever. What is the point of this? Do people use this app because of its ability to make evanescent aesthetic texts? Or is the evanescent nature of the texts created in this app a reaction to the overwhelming nature of information in our modern age? If this kind of text shares the same features as oral literacies, namely evanescence, does it still qualify as a written text? How long does it have to exist to qualify as what Guar (1992) claimed as information storage of equal value to all texts?
Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015). (n.d.)
Gaur, Albertine. (1992). A history of writing [revised edition]. London:
O’Donnell, J.J. Avatars of the word: From papyrus to cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ong, Walter. (2015.) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.
kamille brodber
June 6, 2018 — 11:49 am
Adam,
I was drawn to your post because of the title. As I read it I was quite intrigued by your thoughts on the evanescent nature of text. When reading Ong, I was actually focused on the differences between oral cultures and written cultures and in many ways, it was difficult for me to picture myself in operating in an oral society. However, your post has stirred up other thoughts in my mind, especially with regards to why “evanescence goes in and out of fashion.”
To my mind the permanence of text, in both written and oral forms, is greater today than any other time history because of the affordances of technology. You mentioned even the once transitory nature of oral speech is changing because of the recording capabilities that now exist. Without the permanence of written text and recorded speech, there is no opportunity for persons to go back and scrutinize every word that was written or said. However, now every form of our communication is just a click away. We can bring up e-mails, text messages, recordings of meetings easier than the speaker is able to recall what was said.
This level of permanence and ease of access puts individuals in a vulnerable position where your mistakes are easily seen and may live longer than you. There is a saying that the spoken word is like a sped arrow which can’t be taken back. I am usually reminded of this saying in situations where I am being asked to choose my words carefully. Today, all forms communication could be considered in a similar manner because it is not easy to take back the words in an e-mail or Tweet once they have been sent. While I believe there is some truth to O’Donnell’s assertions that the permanence of text encourages dialogue, I believe the permanence make us more cautious about what we say and what we are willing to reveal of ourselves. This may be one of the reasons for the evanescence of text being preferred by some individuals.