Domestication and Publication

The presence of the technology in our lives and dialogue is easily understood through the term domestication. I see how we are harnessing and putting to work the technology before us in the same way we would a car (example from text) or an animal (example from original context of word). I think there's more up in the air regarding the power we have over these technologies as compared to the power we have over an ox or horse, and in this way, even how we make these things our own has evolved.  As a teacher at a technology school, I dread the internet going down, or even being slow, my printer running out of ink, the web filter blocking a tutorial video (or the score of the Mets game), or not have the requisite attachments and wires to show that DVD around which my entire lesson has been planned. I wonder if its just human nature that leads us to call this relationship domestication of these technologies, especially when computer literacy seems to be mastery that does not require knowledge beyond using a smattering of programs and sites with user-friendly interfaces.

Such feelings of ease and control have led to the abundance of authorship on the internet.  Baron addresses accessibility to internet and telephone is almost a given in this country, and notes that one does not even need to purchase a domain name publish.  The information then enters the World Wide Web and is available for all to see, unchecked for its validity, content or mechanics.  (Look, I'm doing it right now!)

I feel like this is where the ideas and arguments surrounding literacies spin out of control.  

Should the power to publish be placed directly into the hands of the people?  Will such dissemination of the ideas and language break down the standards of what is valid, correct and meaningful? Who am I to question what is in fact valid, correct or meaningful?  Will ubiquitous samples of poor language make us forget what good language actually is?  The "ice tea" or "iced tea" example stings.  It reminds me of people who misspeak or misspell idiomatic expressions because they have only heard them spoken, which divorces them from their correct pronunciation, the visual of the words spelled out in writing, and the actually meaning or roots of the phrases.  

 

Though Google attempts to correct me with two suggestions for "recieve" when I enter it as a search, I am given 486,000,000 English pages with the word "recieve" (and in .14 seconds!).   Is this what it means to say that we've eliminated the publisher, or copyeditor for that matter.

I can search for sites on how to build a bomb, lively debate on whether or not Hitler is still alive, and even me (The Amazon.com review for a book on German feminism is mine, but it's on the second page of the search, as if anyone gets past the first on a Google search these days.  It was part of my BA, and a professor's attempt to draw us into writing in a way that was relevant to today's history readers.  Hmm.).  Are these pieces of information necessary in the marketplace of ideas?  I suppose while we can debate their relevance, we cannot deny their presence or their effects.  I think it's the latter that is most important anyway.  I will keep reading.

Reluctance to New Literacies (or "Is it bad I want my diary back?")

I think about the tools and spaces of writing and literacy, especially on the first day of class. I always seem to have a new binder or clean sheets of paper.  I mean, that special first day of class newness always appealed to me.  I think I understand resistance to recognizing literacies because I remember how long it took me to get away from seeing a fresh document window in the same way I would view the first sheet of paper in an unused notebook.  This page and first post are not the start of a book that is bound and read with turned pages.  This first entry will be sent deeper down onto the page and even pushed onto a second page.  The first entry. The second page.  This still does not quite compute.

As for the idea of new literacies, I don't feel the same kind of connectedness to previously written books to be read because they already seem to be disconnected from their authors.  They are mass produced, not actually written in someone's hand, and simply convey the text.  Reading the same text in a book, online as a webpage, in graphic novel form with pictures, is still reading for me. 

Before someone points out that I'm speaking in constructs (in that book and text are unanimous, and that they serve as the conveyance of information), I suppose I should reexamine what I consider the definition and purpose of text in the age of "new" literacies.  As a reading specialist and teacher, I immediately hear the droning voice and the purpose of reading, which imply the purpose of writing, namely to entertain or to inform.  Is this "standard" my maxim only because it's never been questioned?  Perhaps before I try to wrap my mind around the purpose of reading, I should identify things to be read.  

As a reading teacher, I offer my students lists of "things to read" when demonstrating that reading is everywhere:

Subway ads

The ESPN Bottom Line

Cereal Boxes

Forms

Magazines

Tests and assignments

Comic books

Letters and notes

Email

Dictionaries, texts and references

Text messages

Nutrition facts

Medicine bottles

Clothing labels, tags, directions

I see which of these would be "new" literacy forms, and feel that I have been accepting of the promotion of these types of literacy, but I wonder if they require a distinct skill set that I have not encouraged in my instruction.  It's not simply the presentation of the form of literacy that is important.  It's equally important to provide a mean of accessing the literacy, which may go beyond the simple phonemic properties and textural structures which are the majority of what I've studied of literacy so far.