Extended Essay Rough Draft

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.