Inventing Electracy

KARA SMITH

I'm not as concerned with what electracy is, but rather what it is not. Ulmer seems to want us to see electracy as the inevitable next step on the continuum of culture. First, orality, then literacy, now electracy. But, based on our selected readings (granted these were limited and the pdf was nearly unreadable) Ulmer hasn't proved electracy as a site of real change in a way of knowing in the way that literacy was a genuine change in society's way of knowing as compared to orality. The shift from orality to literacy, as Walter Ong would describe, was a shift in our way of knowing, moving away from memory as mode to overarching changes in language as a result of literate culture. Janet Emiq asserted that writing is a unique mode of learning because it engages both hemispheres of the brain. Further, she reviews "talking and listening as first-order processes" (that are acquired without formal instruction) and "reading and writing as second-order processes" requiring systematic instruction. Vygotsky notes that "written speech is a separate linguistic function, differing from oral speech in both structure and mode of functioning." (Villanueva 8-9) Ulmer has failed to show how electracy is a paradigmatic shift akin to that from orality to literacy.

Through much of the reading, Ulmer himself points to electracy as a shift in the apparatus (what I refer to as the medium, hopefully my reference is on target), but he seems to rely on metaphysics as the logical base for claiming that electracy is next for this cultural continuum. To me, it seems that he is accurate in identifying electracy as a change in the apparatus, but I fail to see how electrate culture is all that different from literate culture. Much of orality was lost or subsumed into literate culture. Society's reliance on memory, for one, has all but faded away (as evidenced by the ritualistic need for middle-school and high-school teachers to require students to memorize a poem). But electrate culture does not do to literate culture, its predecessor, according to Ulmer, what literate culture did to orality. Instead, electrate culture relies on literate practices, like the basic principles of reading and writing acquisition and practice, in a new medium, via a different apparatus.

Ulmer does pose electracy, to some extent, not as an attempt to supplant orality or literacy, but as a viable solution or "third dimension of thought, practice and identity." (Ulmer-online chapter) But his position is later muddled when discussing literate and electrate metaphysics, because he refers specifically to a shift. Apparently it is a shift he wants to posit, but not fully back. (the other apparent could very well be my misunderstanding of his position - this should not be overlooked entirely!)For me to more fully understand Ulmer's electracy, I would need more explanation of his use of imaging and a better understanding of what he means by his pedagogical approach.

Electracy's worldview, he poses, is based in entertainment in the way that orality was based in religion and literacy in science. I can understand how entertainment opens up avenues for exploring electrate culture, but I cannot understand what Ulmer means by worldview, if entertainment stands as the worldview for electrate culture. While, yes, much of our engagement with electrate culture, via tv, radio, internet, etc, has an entertainment value, there still exists a connection between the electrate and the pragmatic, the needful, the dutiful, and so on. Not to mention that electracy, if entertainment is truly its foundation, would likely become more of a passing fad than a viable step in a continuum of oral and literate pratice.