I have been pondering Ong’s (1982) words, “Print encourages closure, a sense that what is found in a text has been finalized, has reached a state of completion. This sense affects literary creations and it affects analytic philosophical or scientific work.” (Ong, p. 132) I realize that this sense of closure related to the permanency of print, the physicality of print and the accessibility of print. This closure also implied legitimacy.
Prior to the computer, it was hard to get anything published and there was a vetting process to do so. Not just anyone could publish. The vetting process helped legitimize the written word that made it to print. Physical access constraints served as a gatekeeper to printed material. For example, medical journals or medical texts were only found in medical libraries and professional medical settings. It would be less likely for anyone not legitimately associated with the medical profession to access these journals and texts.
Chappell et. al. (2000) discussed the structural context that gave academic institutions processes and powers to construct legitimate knowledge and be the gatekeeper of knowledge. They observed that with increased globalization processes, there is a shift from traditional disciplined-based research to performative research focused around business ethos. This performative research is concerned with application across heterogenous practitioners and thus the knowledge produced is less stable, fluid and more socially accountable.
As I reflect that about not being able to physically identify legitimate content and the concept of fluid and socially accountable knowledge, I propose that we are in desperate need for a yet to be discovered technology. We need better ways for discerning legitimate content and knowledge from fake news. The publishers vetting process and the physical limitation to access helped mediate legitimate knowledge. It was an imperfect process but I propose it did so to an acceptable degree. Academic institutions were traditionally the gatekeepers and makers of legitimate knowledge. In the post computer world, I propose that there is yet to be a broad-based complementary technology that aids readers and consumers in discerning legitimate knowledge from fake news.
So as I read the other blog posts about whether new technologies like, the e-book, will replace old ones, like the physical book, my thoughts fall on the concept of complementary technologies or the lack of complementary technologies. Replacement, in part, may be influenced by how fast we are able to help facilitate the function of discernment.
References:
Chappell, C., Farrell, L., Scheeres, H., & Solomon, N. (2000). The organization of Identity: Four cases [Chapter 10]. In C. Symes & J. McIntyre (Eds.), Working knowledge: The new vocationalism and higher education (pp. 135-152): Open University Press.
Ong, W. (1982.) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.
