Sammi Petite
Professor Leake
Rhetoric & Academic Writing
27 January 2013
Extended Essay
What kind
of writers are we becoming? Many authors that we have read have taken positions
of the effects that technology has on us as writers and as literate individuals.
These positions have ranged from the belief that Google is making us stupid to
the opposite end of the spectrum that technology is helping us advance as
writers. But something that Andrea Lunsford, writing professor and Director of
the writing program at Stanford University, points out is a more appropriate
standpoint, “the changes brought about by the digital revolution are just
that: changes.” This essay will explore varying standpoints and address the
concept that no perspective is right or wrong, there are only changes. And it
all just depends on what lens is being used to examine literacy.
One
end of the spectrum explores the drawbacks of technology on literacy. There are
clearly negative affects that the excessive use of technology is having on our
skills as readers and writers. Esteemed writer about of technology, culture,
and economics, Nicholas Carr explains the effects that Google and other
Internet research is having on us. He explains “Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that
someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural
circuitry, reprogramming the memory.” Using Google as an information source
rather than books and encyclopedias seems to be changing the way that we think.
Carr reveals the phenomenon that himself and many people are having concerning
their ability to read and their attention span; problems that I am experiencing
as well. Carr says he used to be able to immerse himself in “long stretches of
prose” but now finds his concentration starting “to drift after two or three
pages.” This problem seems to be a very relatable one that my classmates and
myself are experiencing now as a result of our heavy use of electronic media. I
used to read books all the time but now I can only get a chapter or so before I
get the desire to listen to music, watch TV, or browse on the computer. Even while I was reading Carr’s article I
began to experience exactly what he was describing. My concentration started to
drift after a paragraph or so and it was a struggle “dragging my wayward brain
back to the text.” Chris Hedges, an American journalist specializing in
American politics and society, takes a similar but much harsher standpoint. Hedges
utilizes harsh language to describe his view of America as “radically
distinct, unbridgeable and antagonistic entities.” According to Hedges,
technology isn’t just causing some problems in our literacy skills, it is
literally dividing the country into the literate minority and the illiterate
majority. And it not only is affecting us individual it is affecting the nation
as a whole as well. Playwright Richard Forman sums up what is happening: [But
now] I see within us all (myself included) the replacement of complex inner
density with a new kind of self—evolving under the pressure of information
overload and the technology of the “instantly available.”
At the other end of the spectrum is
a much more positive take on the effects of technology on literacy. Andrea
Lunsford directly opposes Carr and Hedge’s opinions. Lunsford wants to sketch
an alternative picture of literacy than those who think Google is making us
stupid and Facebook is frying our brains, such as Carr and Hedges. Lunsford has
collected thousands of pieces of student writing and come to a few conclusions
after analysis of these works. Contrary to the popularly held belief that with
the rise of technology the literacy level drops, Lunsford found that “students
were writing A LOT, both in class and out.” As well as continuing to write, these
students are “increasingly aware of those to whom they were writing and
adjusted their writing styles to suit the occasion and the audience.” They
truly cared about their writing and wanted it to “count for something” and
hoped their writing could be the kind that “made something happen in the
world.” To them writing was not a solitary, individual practice but rather
something that is “collaborative, social, and participatory.” Lunsford’s experiences with analyzing these writings have
led her to make a strikingly different conclusion that Carr or Hedges made.
While they see electronic media and similar activities as dooming Americans to
a future of illiteracy, Lunsford argues that, rather than leading to a new
illiteracy, these activities seemed to help them develop a range or repertoire
of writing styles, tones, and formats along with a range of abilities.”
Lunsford challenges the commonly held belief of growing illiteracy as a result
of technology use and offers us another alternative. In her opinion, “the
participatory nature of digital media allows for more—not less—development of
literacies.” Lunsford explains that, “These changes alter the very grounds of
literacy.” Yes,
literacy is changing but not necessarily, as Lunsford so accurately points out,
in a bad way. And Lunsford points out “young people are changing as well,
moving swiftly to join in this expanded culture of writing.” The changing
concept of literacy calls for a change in us as well, to broaden our
perspectives. Lunsford calls for us to shift away from “a single static
standard of correctness” and towards a more complex view that expands our
definition of literacy.
Sylvia Scribner, American
psychologist and educational researcher, takes a different viewpoint than Carr,
Hedges, and Lunsford. Rather than viewing the changes as positive or negative,
Scribner focuses more the fact that nobody truly knows what literacy is and
that we “have yet to discover its boundaries”. And how can anyone label
literacy as improving or worsening when nobody has a concrete definition for
literacy. Scribner points out that attempts to create an “umbrella definition”
have been futile and unsuccessful. Scribner does side with Lunsford on an
important concept, that people “aim to describe constituents of literacy in
terms of individuals achievements but the single most compelling fact about literacy
is that it is a social achievement.” The two women agree that literacy is “an
outcome of social transmission.” Scribner
explains a very important concept that Carr and Hedges neglect when describing
the growing illiteracy of our nation. “Individual literacy is relative to
social literacy. Since social literacy practices vary in time and space, what
qualifies as individual literacy varies with them” This is very important to
consider when defining someone as literate or illiterate. Different communities
and cultures have varying definitions of what literacy is. “Literacy has
neither a static or universal essence.” So,
“the enterprise of defining literacy,” Scribner describes, “becomes one of
assessing what counts as literacy in the modern epoch ins some given social
context. Literacy means two completely different things in urban New York than
in rural Africa. In New York, to be an active and integrated member of society the
literacy requirements are much higher than in farming communities in Africa.
But neither is better or worse, just different. Being able to read a lengthy
intellectual novel is neither necessary nor useful in rural Africa just as
knowing agricultural practices is unnecessary and useless in urban New York. This comparison explains how “We may lack consensus on how
best to define literacy because we have differing views about literacy’s social
purposes and values.” If literacy means something different everywhere how can
we define a person or peoples as illiterate or literate? Literacy is too
complex of an issue to be boiled down to simple dichotomies such as literate or
illiterate.
In my opinion, technology is having
an extremely mixed effect on my literacy skills. The internet has both helped
and hindered my ability as a writer. The hindrances mostly lie in my lack of
attention span and motivation. The instantly available nature of the internet
has made it a challenge to read lengthy research to support my writing, Because
of the internet I have become less relient on my own original thoughts and
ideas and instead often resort to Googling “analysis of “ whatever book or
subject that my paper or writing is about. On the other hand the Internet has
provided me with endless information to incorporate into my essays and
responses. I do believe that the technology culture which I find myself so
immersed is damaging my ability to read as much as I used to but I also believe
that computers and other forms of media are incredibly powerful tools that can
aid the quality of my writing. The challenge is to not let technology weaken my
literacy but to embrace all that it has to offer and using it just as one tool
but not as the only tool.
Lunsford
seems to have some unbiased glimpses of the changing nature of technology and
accurately sums up the topic of this essay when she says, “But with technology,
you win some and you lose some.” A simple but extremely accurate phrase perfectly
sums up the impact of technology on literacy. The concept of literacy is
changing with some affects perceived as negative and some perceived as
positive. The truth is, we do not yet understand what the future holds for
literacy in our society. And rather calling the majority illiterate, or claim
that technology is advancing literacy, or struggling to form a concrete
definition of literacy, we should instead broaden our horizons and be patient
with the metamorphosis of literacy. Because as Carr reminds us that Plato said
that written word would make us “ignorant” and rob us of “real wisdom.” But now
with hindsight we see the tremendous benefits that the written word has awarded
us since its conception. So maybe we are to quick to judge the changing nature
of literacy just as Plato was to quick to judge the art of writing. What kind of writers are we becoming? We do
not yet know, but with the combined perspectives of intellectuals such as Carr,
Hedges, Scribner, and Lunsford, and with the passage of time, we may soon find
out. And the result will most likely not be what we expected.
