Inventing Electracy

CARISSA WOLF

In my understanding, electracy is more than ‘electronic-based discourse’ or technological literacy. Ulmer’s proposition is based on the concept that electracy is the next evolutionary step of our communication strategies and in many ways is better than traditional print-based literacy because it makes ideas, concepts and information much more interactive and more widely available. However, I see it as neither better nor worse than print-based literacy, merely different.

Ulmer compares the rise of electracy to the movement from orality to literacy – in transferring from one esteemed form of communication to another, sacrifices are made, rewards are received. As Socrates (and Plato) described in the Phaedrus, oral culture was based on the five canons – invention, arrangement, presentation, memory and delivery – some of which were dropped in the transition towards literacy, for text eliminated the need for memorization and the vocal skills of delivery. However, text preserved what was said in a way that allowed for later revisiting or for sharing among fellows. Print-based literacy then broadened the access for knowledge in a way that not even traveling orators could replicate.

This shift is apparent again in the transition from literacy to electracy. For literacy, theoretically, aims to share knowledge among people provided they have access to the print forms. However, here is where literacy falls short, for not everyone has the same kind of access, the same sphere of influence, or even publish in the same language. Entrance into such a realm of knowledge is limited to the influencial, the renowned, and those who adhere to the public perceptions of literate (i.e. went to all the right schools, read all the right books, and can churn out all the right writings). Electracy, however, broadens the sphere of influence even more than literacy did to orality, for now all one needs is internet access in order to access the wealth of knowledge and to contribute to it. Anyone can start a blog, post to communities, share their insights in general to a broad audience. As Ulmer as pointed out, “the borders of identity – of the group subject (between individual and collective) – become writable” (xviii), wherein people can associate themselves strongly with a group and define themselves by which groups they belong to and what they can contribute to the group. Online discussions in these can grow just as heated as those in real life, and often link to other sources like Wikipedia and Youtube as proof or entertainment. Such hyperlinking simply cannot be done in a text source. Language barriers, too, are affected via translating software and online communities of generous translators, reducing barriers once again. Furthermore, podcasts and video blogs even enable one to tie back into the skills of orality, bypassing text altogether.

However electracy produces downsides as well, downsides glossed over in Ulmer’s discussion. Collective information sites like Wikipedia can be added to or adjusted by anyone at any moment, so it is difficult to gauge validity or reliability of such a malleable source. Also, because anyone and anything can post something online, one has to work even harder to make one’s voice be heard simply because of the massive influx of useless and redundant chatter. The skillset for effective electracy must not only include technological competency, functional print-based literacy, but also an understanding of what resources already abound and how to gather an audience. In my own internet searchings, the most effective blogs are ones that stand unique among the crowd, who know how to convey information and knowledge while entertaining their followers. This enhanced need for uniqueness goes ignored by Ulmer for the sake of adding to collective knowledge. While the lines of individuality might be blurry in some space on the internet, in other areas, people must work even harder so they can stand apart from the crowd.