Reflective Essay 3

What lessons have I learned over the past two weeks? Well for one thing, Ong and Plato seem to be both on the same page, and yet not. I agree with Ong that writing does alter the consciousness. I experience that myself when posting or writing reflective essays. Plato argues that writing destroys memory, and that writing “pretends to establish outside the mind what can be only in the mind”. But isn’t what is in your mind, why you write? In this exact moment of me typing this reflective essay, I am putting my thoughts down in ink. It may not be writing per se’, but it is aligned with transferring information from thought to a medium which can capture these thoughts, and allow others to read them without my being present.

Squarciafico insisted that “the abundance of books makes men less studious,” because books are but brief accounts of a particular subject matter. This would mean that man has a brain that is more comprehensive, and not capable of forgetting. I would differentiate the book from memory in that once a book is written, truthful or not, it can be recited word for word in the time it takes to read the book. Memory is not as keen in this respect.

Another dynamic of “textuality” is that “By separating the knower from the known, writing makes possible increasingly articulate introspectivity, opening the psyche as never before not only to the external objective world quite distinct from itself but also to the interior self against whom the objective world is set.” Why would this be any different than remembering? I think that anybody who does not know, or only knows a little about a subject, is capable of even more introspectivity through animated verbalization than writing it down. The mere fact that we can articulate our thought is reason enough for me to agree that there is no compounding difference between writing and orality.

Clearly, in order to write in a way that expresses, it takes a more conscious effort in thought and imagination, probably more-so than when just speaking. Speaking (orality) has a more fluent dynamic than writing. With the proper use of words and with the proper use of punctuations though, one could almost create the same speech on paper. A great example of this is Martin Luther Kings “Freedom Speech”. Although I had heard the speech many times, when I read it over and over, it takes on a new meaning, is more emphatic, and is better understood.

On technology, I understand Thamus’ argument that how it is used is not what makes technology good or bad, but the system that technology creates. In relating this to orality and writing, Thamus is concerned that writing might overcome orality. In respect to communication, you can define “system” as a set of principles in which we communicate. Thamus views orality as the basic way of communicating. He is worried that writing will take the place of oral cultures, thus possibly eradicating natural sound and thought. Thamus sees this as possibly being immoral, a nemesis to oral cultures.

Postman agrees that some cultures see technology as being a good thing benefiting everyone, naïve to the fact that certain technology is only affordable by a few of these cultures. Postman also sees that not all cultures will be receptive to technology due to ethical reasons. His biggest argument is how writing and computers will affect learning and social responsibility. His belief is that computers will isolate individuals from others because it is a tool of self proclaimed prodigy. Why communicate with others when you have all the information you want at your fingertips? Computers according to Postman, promote egocentrism, competition, and personal autonomy. It will release individuals of social responsibility.

Bacon was quoted as saying “The goal of science is the “endowment of human life with new inventions and riches”. I believe this to be partially true. Working in the aerospace industry and more importantly the Space Shuttle Program, I can say for a fact that one of the main purposes for the International Space Station is Life Science projects. These projects are focused entirely on the advantages of science in space for the humanity. So I agree with Bacon to some extent. It would make more sense if Bacon were to reword this phrase by saying “technology is geared toward new inventions for the purpose of riches and the endowment of human life”. Technology fits his thinking rather than science.

On Gitlin: One thing that resonates with me is his idea on nomadicity. Technology has become so advanced that while Postman believes that it will raise egocentrism, he neglects the thought that the “cost of always being connected” leads to Gitlins paradox on technonomadicity, that while we have the freedom of access at will, this freedom becomes freely accessible to other people as well. So while Postman might think that computers lead to private learning and individual problem-solving, he needs to know that everybody who is connected has the same capability. So is it really private learning and individual problem-solving, or a virtual open classroom that gives the freedom to learn what you want to learn?

And one last thought. As far as Frederick Taylor and technopoly is concerned. Postman cites Taylor as being the first to view technopoly in the form of “society is best served when human beings are placed at the disposal of their techniques and technology that human beings are, in a sense, worth less than their machinery.” My argument on this is that humans developed machines to replace the human effort involved in work (output). Now, it may be that some believe that machines are to replace human beings all together. But I would put the value of humans before machines because it was humans that developed machines to begin with. So I would rephrase this to say that “society is best served when techniques and technology are placed at the disposal of human beings.”

The one thing I learned this week is that in order for an orality culture to exist, there should be repetitiveness in speech, the speech should be constructed in a way that allows people of a certain domain to understand it, and that there must be no knowledge of writing.

It is probably more noticeable to see repetitiveness in writing, and there is for sure, rules that govern writing in general; the proper use of commas, punctuation, the correct use of verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and so on. These to me are less noticeable in orality than written text.

In comparing Ong’s theories about orality, and watching “Manufacturing Consent” and “Outfoxed”, there is clearly a relation between Ong’s theories, and the use of them in the two movies. For one, Chomsky makes repetitive nuances to the media being a form of control over the masses in order to direct or redirect what information should be disseminated to the public for means of supporting government decision-making, or distraction of decisions that are made by the government. According to Chomsky, the media chooses what stories to disseminate to the public. It is the effective use of mnemonics and formulas to create rhythmic discourse, as well as distraction.

In the movie “Outfoxed”, Greenwald points to specific behaviors by FOX News that support Chomsky, and contradict FOX’s “fair and balanced” journalism. The repetitive sayings like “people are saying”, by news reporters appears to be a scheme to win the public over. After watching the movie, I was appalled by what was revealed to me through the uncanny journalistic behavior by FOX News correspondents.

Distraction or covert styles of journalism that capture the public’s attention are well thought out by FOX. I was attracted though by the genius of how FOX News is broadcast, and by the intellect that goes into their broadcasting, which apparently does win over the masses. News is business, and in order to make a profit, you have to “outfox” your competition.
In reflecting on Ong’s “verbomotor” cultures, he states that these cultures rely more on the effective use of words and human interaction, and less on visual inputs. In watching “Outfoxed”, I noticed that Greenwald points to both the effective use of words and visual cues in FOX’s broadcasting style. The American Flag as a backdrop to most stories, the use of the words “fair and balanced” as their credo.

My lessons learned for this week are 1) orality, while in all appearance seems to be simple is very complex. There are a number of elements that need to be considered in a culture that relies on oral communication. Words, sentence construct, sound, thought and expression, make for a complex dialogue. I do not agree with Ong that words are not signs. Text to me is symbols, and I believe symbols ARE signs, 2) orality, if effectively used, could be a good method in reporting the news. While my perspective of FOX News has been tarnished by watching the movie “Outfoxed”, I believe if they were to use orality in a more positive manner (based on my perception of “Outfoxed”) they could be a much more objective, fair and balanced, media.

Final Comment

Thurlow quotes Kling (1996) as stating "a technological system can be both cause and effect; it can shape or be shaped by society". I agree with this statement. Not only can the system shape or be shaped, it is society that ultimately defines what technology should be introduced.

Asocial vs. Antisocial

The poor quality of communication on the internet is not the result of technological restraints (asociality), I believe it is because those using the internet are not inclined to be ethical due to the freedom of speech allowed by the internet. In contrast, off-line communication should not be negatively affected (antisociality) by CMC because it is not CMC. You can't, nor should mix the two processes of communication. I agree with Thurlow (2004) on his assumptions that asociality could be "cold and unfriendly" but strictly due to the fact that there is no human element of relationship. I also agree that his assumptions about antisociality does affect F2F interaction because CMC is after all, a medium in which to communicate. CMC and F2F are relational to some extent. But they are two distinct forms of communication and should be treated as such.

Technological Determinism

The one thing I can say about CMC is that it continues to evolve. Of the four core assumptions about TD, technological imperative fits the closest. CMC was and is inevitable, it is in progression, and you can't reverse it. Even if you could stop it, it would have a tremendous impact on how the world communicates. Mostly by putting us on hold. I believe in the positions on social constructivism, and social realism. I believe they go hand in and. The constructivist would argue that while technologies are not a necessity for social interaction, in the culture of business it would be imperative. As for the realist, since technology is ever evolving, it is because we DO understand the relationships between technology, culture, and social interaction. I would then say that the social realist is more align with the concept of technological imperative.

Cybersociety

Everytime I access my computer for information or other, I feel I am entering a different world. A world where there are unknowns. Thurlow (2004) justifies my perception with the term cybersociety. While I very seldom communicate on-line at home, I do communicate via email at work frequently because it allows me to access multiple individuals at once. I feel safer in an INTRAnet environment than I do internet. Because of this, it does lay foundtion that communication via the computer has created its own society(s) and culture(s) within this unknown space.

This is a very interesting group dynamic. According to Johnson and Johnson (2003) Members' power is based on expertise, ability, and access to information, not on authority or personality characteristics. Group members should form coalitions that help fulfill personal goals on the basis of mutual influence and interdependence (pg.13).

Don't have time to think of these things...

While I understand the concepts of communication, mediate, and computers, it was helpful to describe communication in terms of multifunctional and multimodal. But I don't believe that once in the mode of a transactional communication process, the person(s) engaged will necessarily think of things like the purpose of the engagement (multifunctional), or that what they say may be taken out of context (multimodal).

Complex vs. Dynamic

The one thing Thurlow (2004) doesn't mention in his book is that communicating is very complex. But I guess he doesn't have to say so, since he implies it by examining the core concepts of CMC. By combinng the processes of communication, th medium in which you communicate, and then throw in the concepts of computers, the word dynamic becomes an understatement for communication.