The Replacement of Print
As Bolter aptly states, “[a]lthough print remains indispensable, it no longer seems indispensable” (2001, p. 10). Although books have not yet become obsolete, it is no doubt that technology is changing the spaces of writing and print as we speak. Whether or not it will replace printed books entirely is still questionable, but there is definitely a downward shift in production of physical text. Historically, older writing technologies have been known to supplement or replace one another, but with the introduction of digital technologies, the entire look and feel of reading and writing are being transformed. Even during the transitions from papyrus scroll to codex to printed book, the changes in technologies did not alter the physical form itself as greatly. Digital technologies are complex and all-encompassing, utilizing screens and hard drives in lieu of physical print.
The process of printing also involves many people besides the author in order to publish a work and requires scrutiny and numerous revisions before distribution to the public (Ong, 1982, p. 120). This is a complete contrast to online publishing, where any individual can become an author in what they choose to post or publish online. In fact, it is such a drastic shift occurring, that Bolter describes it as a traumatic remediation (p. 18).
Culture Change
The evolution of technology has occurred hand-in-hand with changes in society. We should note that, “[i]t is not a question of seeing writing as an external technological force that influences or changes cultural practice; […] technologies do not determine the course of culture or society, because they are not separate agents that can act on culture from the outside” (Bolter, 2001, p. 17). As such, this shift is reflective of a cultural change that has occurred simultaneously.
Technology has enabled us to communicate more efficiently with one another and provided us with flexibility and ease in writing; word processors allow writers to copy, compare, and discard text with the touch of a few buttons (Bolter, 2001, p. 13). We are able to perform written tasks much faster and can connect instantly to those across the globe through electronic communication. Bolter also notes that the development in digital media has led to the favoring of graphics over text (p. 12). The internet is abundantly unique and dynamic, in that we are able to interact with what we read and see. Video, graphics, animation, and audio can be embedded and interwoven through text, providing readers with visual and interactive stimulation not previously available with past writing technologies.
However, at the same time, these changes have resulted in negative consequences also. With the increase in potential for speed, ease, and efficiency, we have developed higher expectations to accomplish more in shorter periods of time (e.g. with the development of cellphones, people often expect others to reply to their texts and messages immediately). Many people have also developed a need for extra stimulation via multitasking, and can experience disinterest, distraction, anxiety, and even frustration when they do not receive it. Those who take long commutes to school or work will often use their cellphones to listen to music, watch videos, send emails or texts, browse the Internet, or all of the above.
Educational Implications
As an Educator, I am both excited and fearful of what the future of technology will mean for teaching and student learning. As demonstrated by this online course itself, the potential for learning, collaborating, providing feedback to one another, and creating is vast. We can study from the comfort of our own homes, while engaging in class discussions and lessons such as we would in a physical classroom. Additionally, technology can also allow for people to present more confident versions of themselves to the public. At the same time, however, there are also many downsides which I have personally experienced within the classroom. Technology has oftentimes resulted in distractedness, social disconnect, boredom (due to over-reliance and withdrawal), and expectations of immediacy (Bolter, 2001, p. 19). Research and source quality may not be as high, and the overall quality of ‘good writing’ is being threatened (p. 11).
To conclude, it is interesting to note Bolter’s reminder that the development of modern writing technologies is a “reflection of contemporary materials and techniques and an expression of our culture’s ambitions for its writing” (2001, p. 16). While our original goal may have been to increase efficiency, ease, access, engagement, and social communication, it seems that by accomplishing these objectives, we have somehow managed to do the exact opposite also. The solutions we have developed have only served to create new problems for the future, and I question the future perpetuation of this problematic cycle.
References
Bolter, Jay David. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print [2nd edition]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and Literacy. Chapters 4 and 5 (pp. 117-155).
mackenzie moyer
July 3, 2018 — 7:51 am
Hello Stephanie,
Your post got me thinking about many different things, all found below.
In my studies for the upcoming documentary assignment I’ve stumbled upon the discussion of technological determinism: did print technology directly cause things to happen in the world? There’s surprisingly a big debate as to whether print even had an impact—surprising because I’d always assumed print did have a huge impact (the popular narrative backed by much of the literature).
The cultural context from which print technology stemmed confounds studying the situation: literacy was already on the up, silent reading was already increasing, manuscript texts were starting to be standardized. In short, the culture we associate with print technologies was already happening, and print technology came out of that context feeding back and influencing it.
Perhaps we can take this discussion in the direction of e-Books to illuminate this subject. While e-Books were ascendant for a time, it seems that paper books are back on the ascent (Wood, 2017) and, contrary to some academic works I’ve read, millennials read more than previous generations did at the same age, and more than older age groups (Howe, 2017). Interestingly, the reason for the upsurge in physical book sales is attributed to a change in prices combined with a change in perspective: rather than e-books vs. physical books, it’s reading vs. videos and social media. (Wood, 2017)
This mirrors you when you say “Those who take long commutes to school or work will often use their cellphones to listen to music, watch videos, send emails or texts, browse the Internet, or all of the above.”
The way you’ve framed it, and the sources you prompted me to explore above, have me reconsidering the framing of the documentary I’ll produce (thank you). Namely, what does print do better than orality? What, in our age of multimedia, does it do better than other multimedia? How is this informed by the cultural context?
For instance, perhaps our distractedness stems from our culture and feeds into our use of technology rather than the other way around. Explaining by way of historical precedent, print technology was resisted by the elite of Korea, and its use with Uyghur script by the Mongolian empire didn’t lead to the same (disruptive, epoch-shifting) cultural effects as it did in the tumultuous time and space of Renaissance Europe. (Newman, 2016) In other words, the technology itself didn’t so much effect cultural change as it reacted with the culture it was embedded within.
This is connected to your concerns for education: how we’re using these technologies can mean the difference between an explosion of productive energies, or the continuation of the status quo: it depends in large part upon how we pursue these technologies and what energies we dedicate to their use.
In many ways, electronic texts are an extension of print technologies, and after 500 years of cultural evolution, the literature still isn’t certain of the effects of print, because we’re still living in the (confusing) aftershock(s) of print:
“The effects of printing seem to have been exerted always unevenly but always continuously and cumulatively from the late fifteenth century on. There appears to be no point at which they began to diminish. Much evidence suggests that they have persisted with ever-augmented force right down to the present. Recent obituaries on the Age of Gutenberg show that others disagree. As yet, however, so few scholars have been heard from that any final verdict is impossible and—in more ways than one—premature.” (Eisenstein, 1980, 106)
Thanks again,
Mackenzie
References:
Bolter, Jay David (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print [2nd edition]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (Original work published 1991)
Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. (1980) The emergence of print culture in the West. Journal of Communication, 35(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1980.tb01775.x
Howe, Neil (2017, January 16). Millenials: A generation of page-turners. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/01/16/millennials-a-generation-of-page-turners/#dcdb9eb19786
McLuhan, Marshall (2011). The Guttenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. (Original work published 1962)
Newman, Sophia M. (2016, winter). The Buddhist History of Moveable Type. Retrieved from https://tricycle.org/magazine/buddhist-history-moveable-type/
Ong, Walter (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.
Wood, Zoo (2017, March 17). Paperback fighter: Sales of physical books now outperform digital titles. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/17/paperback-books-sales-outperform-digital-titles-amazon-ebooks