Inventing Electracy

NILES HAICH

To me the term "electracy" means, quite simply, any and all digital communication. That digital communication can also be classified, in its simplest form, as basic discourse; and I believe the term "discourse" itself needs to be further defined here as well, since the overall understanding of that term is paramount to the understanding of electracy. Basic discourse is, quite simply, any form of communication, be it spoken or written; and electracy both adapts and modifies that central idea. In short, electracy adds the digital dimension to the oral and the literate cultures that are implied in any discussions pertaining to discourse and communication. The digital dimension encompasses all of the incredible electronic advancements that I would say started with the radio, were more fully realized in the television set, and are now embodied in the internet. That said, digital communication is by no means limited to the internet. Cellphones and text-messaging also represent a form of digital communication that can also be classified as electracy. The only major distinguishable characteristic of an electrate device and a typical literate device is that the electrate device creates a form of discourse and/or communication that is not, in essence, real. The literate device, conversely, creates a tangible discourse, be it something as simple as words on the page; but those words on the page are nonetheless a form of discourse that is real because those words were recorded on a physical object that cannot be so easily lost. An electrate device, again, does not necessarily record written discourse—although a person could easily argue that an electrate device does or could; but rather than be a mere invention that records a snippet of written discourse, an electrate device implies a written discourse. In other words, a electrate device replicates a form of communication and is thereby a virtual recording rather than a real one. So then an actual book which one reads could be classified as real; it could also be classified as being a literate device. The same book projected on a computer screen, conversely, would not be in essence an actual book but rather a replication of that book and therefore an idea, not a reality. That said, it could also be more aptly stated to define electracy as a replication of discourse, rather than virtual discourse. The idea becomes particularly clear when one calls to mind the James L. Kinneavy triangle, a visual device that provides not only a visual argument for writing being a form of discourse, but also a model for what takes place in any form of communication. The triangle, as Kinneavy presents it, is up-side down. Thus the top presents the longest line, and the bottom presents merely a point. On the left-hand side of the triangle one sees the word "Encoder" and/or "Writer." At the opposite end one sees the "Decoder," and/or "Reader" or "Audience." At the bottom one sees "Reality," an integral part of all communication, since it is solely through a shared reality that any form of language can exist. One could not, conversely, speak nonsense language and/or make up words and concepts and fully expect the "Decoder" to understand him/her. The most important part of the Kinneavy communication triangle to electracy, however, lies precisely in the middle: the "Signal." It is the signal that provides the replication of the reality, which is at the base. Now it could also be argued, of course, that all language and communication replicates reality, and that would be true. Writing and discourse both replicate reality and/or reference it. So does electracy, obviously. However, and here is the key point: It is writing that uses an encoder to replicate reality in the most tangible way possible so as to establish a form of communication with the decoder. Conversely, it is electracy that uses an encoder to solely replicate reality so as to establish a form of communication with the decoder. Electracy, as one can further see through an even closer analysis of the Kinneavy triangle, breaks down many established forms and methods as those methods pertain to reality and logic and makes it its sole objective to replicate reality without actually becoming reality, whereas writing (which takes much longer obviously) replicates reality and in so doing becomes a form of reality itself. Now obviously electracy could become a form of reality too, but electracy does not have to while writing does; and I think it is exactly because of the fact that electracy sidesteps many of the steps that writing needs that not only ensures electracy's longevity but also reflects society as a whole. As a society, we are always embracing the next, simplest and fastest tech; and electracy fully reflects that tendency, especially when it is viewed alongside both our oral as well as our literate cultures.