Technocentrism, and other assorted ills

I would like to preface this response with the following disclaimer: I, like Garth, did not overly appreciate the New Media readings for this week.

That having been said, let me say that I did agree with many of the points that Wysocki in the early parts of her first chapter, including her citation of Horner. I think it is true that “the materiality of writing may be understood to include social relations,” but more than that, I think we need to go beyond considerations of materiality and talk about the fact that writing itself is social in nature, that it is always in response to something, and that whatever kind of response it is, its form is, to an extent, socially determined (3). Wysocki goes on to discuss the fact that it is part of our jobs as teachers to show students that they do not write in an intellectual vacuum, and that there is exigency for their work. I agree that there is a question of the definition of the rhetorical situation of new media texts, and that the consideration of that situation would be helpful to composition students in order to further their understanding of the link between rhetoric and successful writing.

It is basically after this point in the reading that I begin to diverge from Wysocki’s understandings of text, power, and teaching. Wysocki seems to indicate, on page 8, that not only is there not necessarily such a thing as “new” technology, neither is there such a thing as neutral technology. Her contention here seems to be that because any kind of technology always comes out of existing structures (economic, political, or habitual), technology is incapable of neutrality because it is always made by something that is biased in some way.

I also have an issue with the block quote on page 12 that deals with the seriousness with which we consider texts of varying appearances, when it suggests that a reader would think less of a text that drew “such visual attention to itself.” I disagree with the entire notion that instruction in new media texts is necessary to the composition class because composition courses do not involve the serious consideration and production of a variety of literary forms. I will grant this argument that there are, unfortunately, some professors who conduct their First Year Composition courses as if they were essay-writing seminars. But there will always be professors who will take a hard and literal line about the instruction of their subject. It seems to me, based on both my experience and the related experiences of friends, that there is in fact a great deal of variety in what is seriously considered and produced in Freshman Composition. I think it is very easy to write about extremes of behaviors and situations, all the while implying that these extremes are normal, when in fact they are unfortunate rarities.

Following our informal group discussion on Monday, I would like to raise the issue of the problematic nature of Wysocki’s formal definition of “new media texts” on page 15. Wysocki’s definition is predicated on both the composer’s awareness of the various materialities of texts, and the subsequent awareness of the viewer of the interconnectedness of the text that they are reading (15). The problem with this definition is much like the one that exists with current debates concerning hate crime laws (i.e., the question of how an institution can legislate thought and intent), in that it is nearly impossible, during the five minutes that a person devotes to checking their e-mail, to determine the connection that the Hotmail designer intended to encourage between the size of the icons and the color of the font. It is impossible for anyone besides the Hotmail designer to assess the level of awareness and exact intentions that preceded the creation of the Hotmail website. If anyone has determined a means by which intent can be assessed with complete accuracy, then that person needs to stop talking about composition instruction and needs to start talking to the people who operate the security checkpoints at airports.

My point here is that intent is nearly impossible to establish beyond any kind of doubt, and as such, such devoted consideration of intent probably does not belong in the composition classroom.

It is at this point that I would like to raise the issue of reverse discrimination. It is my contention that Wysocki is privileging new media texts disproportionately, while also clearly denigrating the value of texts that are not written with complete authorial awareness of what the reader will think about the choice of black ink instead of blue. I disagree with the idea that reader awareness of the social relativity of texts can only occur through the production and consumption of new media texts. I believe that all media (including the texts discussed in current composition classrooms) can be considered “interactive media,” if “interactive” is taken to mean “psychologically interactive and engaging” (17). Is it not impossible to read a book or poem or peer essay without being minimally engaged with that text on a psychological level? Even when I read a very boring text for an equally boring class, I am psychologically engaged with the text on at least a minimal level. I think it is incredibly technocentric to assume otherwise.

As a sort of post-script, I would like to add that “The Sticky Embrace of Beauty” was unforeseeably difficult to relate to the teaching of college writing. I can agree that the images and formal aspects of a visual composition should not be divorced from one another during analysis, and I agree that there are apparently quite serious limitations with the formalization of rules for visual composing (or any other form of composing, for that matter). Now, I consider myself a lightweight Marxist-feminist critic, but when an author starts mixing what is apparently quite angry feminist rhetoric and Kantian philosophical explanations of aesthetics and beauty, I confess to becoming much less able to understand the connection between the majority of this chapter and the teaching of college writing.