Letting go of Romanticism, Part 2

Earlier in the semester when we talked about Bakhtin, we discussed the commonly held belief that written texts are the product of one author's sole original imagination. The concepts of heteroglossia and ventriloquation refigure this idea into one that sees all texts as products of a myriad of influences, voices, and authors.

I thought of this when Burn & Parker wrote about "recombination," the idea that digital animations were made up of separate parts. They brought up a the aforementioned Romantic notion, remarking, "This organic unity is opposed, in the Romantic ideology, to a scientific view of the body as an assemblage of parts..." (p. 164). They continue, arguing that this way of constructing images challenges "artistic unity and individual authorship" (p. 164).

This idea, of many parts (or voices) making up one work is important. Perhaps this is what we mean not only by multimodality, but also of new literacies: that texts are made up of many voices and written by many authors, communicated in modes including but not limited to print.

Multimodality

Have you noticed that so many of the words we use in our discussions around literacy aren't in Spellcheck yet? Multimodality, literacies, multiliteracies--just a reminder that this conversation is still quite new.

I really liked these articles. One quote that stood out was in the Smargorinksy, Zoss, & Reed piece:

What counts, we believe, is not so much that all texts should be written but that teachers should enable students to engage in a process of composition (p. 327).


This connects with the whole concept of Design in from the New London Group's treatise on new literacies, and it's an important idea. No matter what sociolinguists and anthropologists tell us, I think still buried in our subconscious is the belief that writing leads to better and deeper thinking. I mean, I think I believe that on a conscious level, but I also think that the types of compositions discussed in these articles does the same thing.

As I'm leading up to my point, I concede that Smagorinksy et al. have already made it for me. The quote above continues, "one that allows learners to engage in extended activity that requires the synthesis of knowledge they acquire in culturally-valued and useful texts..." (p. 327). I'm on board with the importance of extended activity. Learning and synthesis take time and lots of different touches (and modes) with texts (written or otherwise). Unfortunately, that's what we sacrifice in schools--time--leading to shallow and unmeaningful "learning." The tool is important in that we need to use lots of different ones, but I agree that we shouldn't privilege one (writing) over others.

Made me think of Bakhtin & Rosenblatt, too

"I make one film as a filmmaker, but the audience, based on that film, makes 100 movies in their minds. Every audience member can make his own movie. This is what I strive for. Sometimes, when my audiences tell me about the mental movies they have made based on my movie, I am surprised, and I become the audience for their movies as they are describing them to me. My movie has only functioned as a base for them to make their movies." —Abbas Kiarostami (Iranian filmmaker)

On the influence of tools

From The New York Times: Sephia No More

Identity, Online Dating, and Art

Star Formation

(AFP/NASA-HO/File)

Literacy in American Lives, Technology Edition

This article made me think about my own life in terms of technology. I remember getting an Apple IIe when I was in second or third grade. Lots of good times playing Oregon Trail from a floppy disk that was actually floppy, and later, on a newer computer with a color screen, Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?. I don't remember having any computers at school until middle school, and then we only used them to learn how to type. Things may not have changed much there. The other thing that blows me away is email. I remember in college, our library had a computer lab, and my roommate and I would sit in there right next to each other and email back and forth. We had to go to this special office on campus where they gave you an assigned email address; it was all very secure and a big deal. We just thought it was the coolest thing. The other night I was watching Seinfeld and at the end of the episode Jerry goes, "Email? What's email?" That was just in 1997. It's like the whole thing just exploded overnight.

When I think about my mom and dad having to use manual typewriters for all of their term papers, it makes me cringe. Or having to go to the library and physically hunt down books and articles with a--gasp!--card catalog. I did this in high school, I guess, but I can't imagine having to do it now.

In reference specifically to the article, I took note of the section where Melissa fudged her job application and had to learn computer programs basically overnight before starting. She took the manual home and taught herself. I liked this part for two reasons. One, I like the relationship there between using a traditional print resource to scaffold the use of technology; and two, it demonstrates how people learn to use technology--in most cases, we teach ourselves through using the application, machine, or what have you. This has implications for school because in school we traditionally like to hold people's hands and be a sort of gatekeeper. But technology doesn't work that way as a rule, and if students today are used to teaching themselves and figuring things out through use, that's important. This is not to say schools and teachers aren't needed, or that someone can't help you learn more or do more with an application than you would on your own. But it does engender a different way of learning, and perhaps a different kind of student.