REBECCA WEST
It is instantaneous and universal. Electracy exists everywhere, including the classroom, and its culture includes all members of society. I wonder if the rate of ilelectracy is the same as illiteracy. There are still certain people who refrain from particpation in electrate culture and some who would like to but can't, either because they are ilelectrate or because they don't have access. I would guess that virtually everyone in a city would have access, but some rural areas still not. And, of course, there are different levels of electracy just as there are literacy--one may be able to read at a grade school level, which would greatly limit their ability to participate in a literate culture, and one may be able to send and retrieve email and surf the web (with limited search skills) but be limited if they don't know how to manipulate and use the multitude of tools available. So there might be pockets of subcultures in electrate society just as there are in literate societies. Status is invariably embedded in the different levels of electracy. Is the learning curve the same in electracy as it is in literacy?
In Ulmer, the realm of electracy is entertainment (as opposed to science and religion). If this is the case, then the new mode of understanding our world is through the interpretive lens of enjoying or not enjoying what we encounter (pleasure/pain axis). So if in the oral world legitimacy is monitored and sanctioned through that of religion, and in the literate world only scientifically backed information is valid, how does that translate in an electrate world? Could it be that only the most entertaining and pleasure producing information is legitimate? Following Ulmer, if science/literacy usurped religion/orality in validity, does that mean that entertainment/electracy with usurp science/literacy? Even though oral culture still exists, and the literate world will as well, perhaps the electrate world will provide a new paradigm for interpreting and understanding our world. Entertainment value is greater than scientific value.
In some ways electracy mimics orality. For instance, the idea of intellectual property and authorship did not exist in oral cultures, but in written cultures became paramount. In electracy, that authorship and individual ownership is threatened. In oral cultures, entertainment was also paramount (pun intended) because a storyteller or orator had to entertain to hold the audience. In literate cultures, one could pause when reading if tired or bored, and resume again at a later time (an individual act). Also, the words will remain the same, untouched. In oral and electrate cultures, if one left the arena, or site, one could come back later and the information might be changed. Further, oral and electrate cultures have more of a communal nature--it takes many to participate in an oral or electrate event, and only one in a literate event (almost a precondition to reading is solitarity). Have we come full circle?
Ironically, electracy unites as well as divides humanity. Obviously, it unites us because we can instantly communicate with anyone and everyone at the same time (akin to Virilio's "general accident"). And also obviously, it is a solitary [physical] act. One could use the imagery of the matrix in the movie of the same name: a gigantic mechanical universe where all humanity is gathered, yet they exist as solitary physical beings, plugged in to keep the machine (the Internet and other electrate venues) alive. In Matrix Reloaded, Zion exists as a kind of oral culture, living in primitive conditions underground and hidden. The only real freedom is to be unplugged. Even with wireless fidelity, there still must be a "hotspot" nearby in order to gain access. The matrix is our mother, as Ulmer reminds us, and our electrate identities are born there. The odd thing is, though, that we do not die in the matrix, we have the ability to live forever, which might be what Ulmer is getting at with his MEmorial. We not only can create collaborative monuments to tragic events, we can do so with our own online identities. Although this sounds like a good thing, some "coppertops" might want to unplug, but they can never get rid of the portals that bound them to the machine. Their electrate identities remain intact and available to others who are still plugged in.
Ultimately, I like the idea that a world based on entertainment as the legitimizer might replace that of the current scientific paradigm, with all the possibilities (and, of course, problems) that might bring.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ANN STEWART
Electracy implies that the user can adapt their current knowledge of software and hardware to be used in learning new modes and new techniques in the electronic world. That knowledge is partly based on educational play. For instance, if I feel inspired to build my own website with no other knowledge than how to turn on a computer and open up Firefox and a search engine, I can still make great leaps in my building my utilizing my search bar. I would input, "How to build a website" into the search bar, press return, and get a slew of free and useful results. This availability, using some common computer skills and my knowledge of a specific language (in this case English) instigates the next step in my knowledge building. Once I learn and apply some concepts provided to me by my search I have already adapted my knowledge to suit various programs such as iWeb, GoDaddy, PageMaker, and other web building software and freeware. Though many of these programs have specific rules and applications, I can learn those fairly quickly either through play or through searching for those answers in the Internet. I can also add to the knowledge base by working through a problem with few available answers and submit my own remedy.
I can understand why Ulmer's chart puts Electracy in the entertainment category. There is a motive when we are introduced to the Internet to find our own place in that community, to entertain ourselves. However, I would argue that we do the same in a university or conversational setting. There are rules of discourse in all communities which we abide by, unknowingly or not, and regardless of those rules we can come to find our place and our community. Learning is social, I agree with Karen Burke Lefevre and to be social is to abide by or to attempt to break social customs and rules. Even in learning to build my website, I am abiding by rules established by a social set. There are even a few places I can choose to break those rules but in doing so I am offering a response to those rules, however, passive. To be literate in any sense is to be social on some level.
In response to Ulmer's use of the five memos of E-lit from Calvino: lightness, quickness, exactitude, visibility, multiplicity, and the assumed final memo of consistency: I am a bit frustrated that his use of them in explanation does not go far beyond the first memo.
The memos:
"Lightness = verbal texture, the language in which the piece is composed: lexicon, diction, syntax. Quickness = the “path of thought” of a work, which translates formally into linking in hypermedia, or the manner of unfolding of theme, plot, figure: circuitous? Direct? The rhythm of passage. Exactitude = the mood or atmosphere of the piece, focused on a scale from sharp to vague. Visibility = visualization in images, but more generally the appeal to all the senses using figures, description, exposition, as well as image or sound files. Multiplicity = the relationship between parts and wholes, on a scale between clean and cluttered."
"In class we work through the first memo together, implementing a Confucian principle: if I show you one corner (of the table), you should be able to find the other three. The quality analyzed is 'Lightness.'"
This holds true with my example of the Russian students looking at a game where text is based in Japanese. If the student can use the limited information of pictures and actions and controller movements provided to her in a world she is already somewhat familiar with (the gaming community and storytelling) she can assume what some of the text that she is not literate in is getting at. In the example of the table, the students could very well be wrong in their assumption of what the three remaining pieces will look like but it is more likely their assumptions will be proved right. The practice actually uses more than one memo from the list.
In Ulmer's undergraduate and graduate lessons, he emphasizes that images are most prominent in Electracy whereas text is not. As a writer and as someone who has literacy in the online world, I have to disagree. The convergence of images, flashes, and text reemphasize what each individual part is trying to communicate. Images can say a lot on their own, but so can words without those images. As far as my exposure, I see an evenness and agreement and not the binary that Ulmer is talking about.
Electracy implies that the user can adapt their current knowledge of software and hardware to be used in learning new modes and new techniques in the electronic world. That knowledge is partly based on educational play. For instance, if I feel inspired to build my own website with no other knowledge than how to turn on a computer and open up Firefox and a search engine, I can still make great leaps in my building my utilizing my search bar. I would input, "How to build a website" into the search bar, press return, and get a slew of free and useful results. This availability, using some common computer skills and my knowledge of a specific language (in this case English) instigates the next step in my knowledge building. Once I learn and apply some concepts provided to me by my search I have already adapted my knowledge to suit various programs such as iWeb, GoDaddy, PageMaker, and other web building software and freeware. Though many of these programs have specific rules and applications, I can learn those fairly quickly either through play or through searching for those answers in the Internet. I can also add to the knowledge base by working through a problem with few available answers and submit my own remedy.
I can understand why Ulmer's chart puts Electracy in the entertainment category. There is a motive when we are introduced to the Internet to find our own place in that community, to entertain ourselves. However, I would argue that we do the same in a university or conversational setting. There are rules of discourse in all communities which we abide by, unknowingly or not, and regardless of those rules we can come to find our place and our community. Learning is social, I agree with Karen Burke Lefevre and to be social is to abide by or to attempt to break social customs and rules. Even in learning to build my website, I am abiding by rules established by a social set. There are even a few places I can choose to break those rules but in doing so I am offering a response to those rules, however, passive. To be literate in any sense is to be social on some level.
In response to Ulmer's use of the five memos of E-lit from Calvino: lightness, quickness, exactitude, visibility, multiplicity, and the assumed final memo of consistency: I am a bit frustrated that his use of them in explanation does not go far beyond the first memo.
The memos:
"Lightness = verbal texture, the language in which the piece is composed: lexicon, diction, syntax. Quickness = the “path of thought” of a work, which translates formally into linking in hypermedia, or the manner of unfolding of theme, plot, figure: circuitous? Direct? The rhythm of passage. Exactitude = the mood or atmosphere of the piece, focused on a scale from sharp to vague. Visibility = visualization in images, but more generally the appeal to all the senses using figures, description, exposition, as well as image or sound files. Multiplicity = the relationship between parts and wholes, on a scale between clean and cluttered."
"In class we work through the first memo together, implementing a Confucian principle: if I show you one corner (of the table), you should be able to find the other three. The quality analyzed is 'Lightness.'"
This holds true with my example of the Russian students looking at a game where text is based in Japanese. If the student can use the limited information of pictures and actions and controller movements provided to her in a world she is already somewhat familiar with (the gaming community and storytelling) she can assume what some of the text that she is not literate in is getting at. In the example of the table, the students could very well be wrong in their assumption of what the three remaining pieces will look like but it is more likely their assumptions will be proved right. The practice actually uses more than one memo from the list.
In Ulmer's undergraduate and graduate lessons, he emphasizes that images are most prominent in Electracy whereas text is not. As a writer and as someone who has literacy in the online world, I have to disagree. The convergence of images, flashes, and text reemphasize what each individual part is trying to communicate. Images can say a lot on their own, but so can words without those images. As far as my exposure, I see an evenness and agreement and not the binary that Ulmer is talking about.
KIM SJURSETH
Language or rhetoric as a living and constantly evolving thing is nothing new, but with the relatively new addition of the Internet, the concept of literacy is being challenged. Gregory Ulmer addresses the change literacy has undergone with the addition of the Internet as electracy. According to Ulmer, in the introduction to his book The EmerAgency, he defines "Electracy is to digital media what literacy is to alphabetic writing: an apparatus, or social machine, partly technological, partly institutional." Electracy in its earliest form in the 19th century was with the "invention of photography, followed by...phonograph and telegraph" (xxiii). He continues to clarify that these electrate mediums primarily serve as entertainment. The intranet is a endless smorgasbord of entertainment, but it also serves as an institution to educate and invent. Ulmer states that the "Internet is an emerging institution that is to electracy what school was to literacy..." The fundamental difference is the focus on the collective rather than the individual as print-based literacy is based.
In addition, Ulmer silos orality, literacy (print) and electracy. To me however, this line is much more blurry. In an attempt to define what electracy means to me, I explored what electracy means as a visual medium and as a social machine by relating them to my personal experiences. I then connected that to what Ulmer says about it.
Electracy as visual: Literacy, in contrast, is not visual according to Ulmer. (Visual = images = Electracy). Granted, the internet allows for the visual image to blend with the written "symbols", I have to disagree that print-based materials cannot be visual. However, the ability to use images constructively is more conducive to electric mediums. My past job required me to create training materials for a diverse audience. Traditional printed user manuals still had their purpose, but it was the e-learning methods that had the greatest effect. E-learning methods fall into the realm of electracy--podcasts, video tutorials, and webcasts. These electric mediums allowed for text and images to be seen as one. As with our recent podcast assginments, it challenged us as rhetorical inventors to go beyond the written word (text) to include images and video to communicate our ideas.
Electracy as social the social machine: Ulmer's website, Heuristics: Inventing Electracy, he proposes the following analogy: "Literacy = School / Concept / Self :: Electracy = Internet / Emblem / Brand." Literacy and education is based on the individual according to Ulmer. Electracy, however, taps into the collective; it is social. As a teacher I cannot agree that literacy is not social nor that only literacy can only be associated with formal education. Again, Ulmer is too quick to draw a rigid line between the two. Ulmer's chart categorizes literacy as scholarly, science based, true/false and electracy as less formal--play, fantasy, emotional. To me, it seems Ulmer is making the statement that electracy is somewhat lesser than literacy or at least not as academic. I cannot understand how a literacy culture does not also contain entertainment. However, I admit I only have a surface level exposure to Ulmer's concepts and writings.
Because electracy is more fluid and more available to the masses (a.k.a the collective) change comes at a faster pace. A part of this change is having a broader range of information or worldview. Although Ulmer's writing style was a challenge for me, I do appreciate what he is attempting to do by defining electracy. I agree that the Intranet and electronic media is influencing how we learn and write and we (as scholars and society as a whole) are trying to wrap our brains around what it all means. Ask me again in 25 years what is electracy. I and Ulmer will likely have a better answer.
Language or rhetoric as a living and constantly evolving thing is nothing new, but with the relatively new addition of the Internet, the concept of literacy is being challenged. Gregory Ulmer addresses the change literacy has undergone with the addition of the Internet as electracy. According to Ulmer, in the introduction to his book The EmerAgency, he defines "Electracy is to digital media what literacy is to alphabetic writing: an apparatus, or social machine, partly technological, partly institutional." Electracy in its earliest form in the 19th century was with the "invention of photography, followed by...phonograph and telegraph" (xxiii). He continues to clarify that these electrate mediums primarily serve as entertainment. The intranet is a endless smorgasbord of entertainment, but it also serves as an institution to educate and invent. Ulmer states that the "Internet is an emerging institution that is to electracy what school was to literacy..." The fundamental difference is the focus on the collective rather than the individual as print-based literacy is based.
In addition, Ulmer silos orality, literacy (print) and electracy. To me however, this line is much more blurry. In an attempt to define what electracy means to me, I explored what electracy means as a visual medium and as a social machine by relating them to my personal experiences. I then connected that to what Ulmer says about it.
Electracy as visual: Literacy, in contrast, is not visual according to Ulmer. (Visual = images = Electracy). Granted, the internet allows for the visual image to blend with the written "symbols", I have to disagree that print-based materials cannot be visual. However, the ability to use images constructively is more conducive to electric mediums. My past job required me to create training materials for a diverse audience. Traditional printed user manuals still had their purpose, but it was the e-learning methods that had the greatest effect. E-learning methods fall into the realm of electracy--podcasts, video tutorials, and webcasts. These electric mediums allowed for text and images to be seen as one. As with our recent podcast assginments, it challenged us as rhetorical inventors to go beyond the written word (text) to include images and video to communicate our ideas.
Electracy as social the social machine: Ulmer's website, Heuristics: Inventing Electracy, he proposes the following analogy: "Literacy = School / Concept / Self :: Electracy = Internet / Emblem / Brand." Literacy and education is based on the individual according to Ulmer. Electracy, however, taps into the collective; it is social. As a teacher I cannot agree that literacy is not social nor that only literacy can only be associated with formal education. Again, Ulmer is too quick to draw a rigid line between the two. Ulmer's chart categorizes literacy as scholarly, science based, true/false and electracy as less formal--play, fantasy, emotional. To me, it seems Ulmer is making the statement that electracy is somewhat lesser than literacy or at least not as academic. I cannot understand how a literacy culture does not also contain entertainment. However, I admit I only have a surface level exposure to Ulmer's concepts and writings.
Because electracy is more fluid and more available to the masses (a.k.a the collective) change comes at a faster pace. A part of this change is having a broader range of information or worldview. Although Ulmer's writing style was a challenge for me, I do appreciate what he is attempting to do by defining electracy. I agree that the Intranet and electronic media is influencing how we learn and write and we (as scholars and society as a whole) are trying to wrap our brains around what it all means. Ask me again in 25 years what is electracy. I and Ulmer will likely have a better answer.
KYLE GAREY
Ulmer’s definition of electracy, to me in a nutshell, is the ability to augment orality and literacy with electronic discourse. Of course, nothing is ever in a nutshell, and to really understand the anus of Ulmer’s print and electric based theory is not easy.
The shift from print based to electronic based discourse is something that I can relate to. In fact, I was there when it became a learning tool (at least, I think I was on the front lines of Ulmer’s paradigm shift). In 1st grade there was one computer per classroom at my school in Alaska. Ulmer says “The institutional practices of electracy, so far, have been developed within the institution of Entertainment” (online chapter). Our computer was a state of the art Apple II, if I remember correctly, and aside from gathering dust in the corner of the room, we were allowed 30 minutes a week to play a math game that involved frogs hopping from square to square eating fractions, decimals, etc. So, not only was it educational, but it was also entertaining for kids. This seems like an early, rudimentary introduction to Ulmer’s theory of electracy. We became better mathematicians through electronic discourse and we were using state of the art technology (garbage today) to augment print based discourse. Of course, times have drastically changed, and now I feel like my mom when I first got my Nintendo; I stare dumbly at search engines, trying to will what I need to know to the screen without me messing up my computer.
Ulmer says in his online chapter that “The part of the apparatus most accessible within the arts and letters disciplines is the practices of imaging. Electracy needs to do for digital imaging what literacy did for the written word. The purpose of my pedagogy, then, is to learn to use the figural as a mode of image reason, as a supplement to the existing institutional commitment to argumentation and analysis.” An ambitious plan, and, perfectly natural because, since my first introduction to electronic discourse, having it at my disposal has helped me in my quest for knowledge (or at least, the knowledge I was told to quest for by various institutions). But I also have a hard time thinking that Ulmer’s grand plan of using electracy to “supplement existing institutional commitments of argumentation and analysis” will ever come to full fruition. Anybody with a computer can put information on the interwebs; look at Wikipedia. Anyone (and it seems just about everyone) can edit and write whatever they want. Teachers and professors refuse to accept anything that’s not from an accredited source, and a majority of what we read and see on the interweb is not an accredited source. Ulmer’s theory that electracy being based on entertainment is a fair assumption, but I don’t have faith this can become the groundbreaking study tool he thinks it’ll become. Just look at our print-based literature program-we can’t even decide on what the canon is. If we’re still stuck trying to figure out what to literatize, how can we figure out what to electracize?
I understand that electracy is still in its infancy and it does show great promise to supplement and aid in the advancement of discourse. For instance, spending hours at the library to track down a pertinent scholarly article has been replaced with Ebsco, JSTOR and the like to just a few minutes and clicks to find what a person needs. And the younger generation has grown up in a culture that basically demands it use computers to communicate, problem solve, educate, and research. Being able to harness the internet to support orality and literacy is already taking effect, but who knows how effective it will become.
As I discussed in the questions above, with the internet there’s no individuality anymore. While the collective is gaining knowledge, it’s becoming increasingly more difficult to find the source of the knowledge. Individuality is becoming lost. It’s easy to find the creator of a print based work; just look at the name under the title. Now, though, there are hundreds of pages using the same information with no clear path back to the originator. What effect will this have on invention? There’s no doubt that the electronic medium is in full force in the educational institutions around the world, but the oral and literate discourses have such a hold on education that I don’t see how Ulmer’s electracy can really become the next step. If by supplementing these traditions he means condensing sources and research material into a few websites, then yes, I can see it becoming a supplement. But there are too many people with too many agendas and too much free time to ever believe that electracy will become the canon that Ulmer believes it to be.
Ulmer’s definition of electracy, to me in a nutshell, is the ability to augment orality and literacy with electronic discourse. Of course, nothing is ever in a nutshell, and to really understand the anus of Ulmer’s print and electric based theory is not easy.
The shift from print based to electronic based discourse is something that I can relate to. In fact, I was there when it became a learning tool (at least, I think I was on the front lines of Ulmer’s paradigm shift). In 1st grade there was one computer per classroom at my school in Alaska. Ulmer says “The institutional practices of electracy, so far, have been developed within the institution of Entertainment” (online chapter). Our computer was a state of the art Apple II, if I remember correctly, and aside from gathering dust in the corner of the room, we were allowed 30 minutes a week to play a math game that involved frogs hopping from square to square eating fractions, decimals, etc. So, not only was it educational, but it was also entertaining for kids. This seems like an early, rudimentary introduction to Ulmer’s theory of electracy. We became better mathematicians through electronic discourse and we were using state of the art technology (garbage today) to augment print based discourse. Of course, times have drastically changed, and now I feel like my mom when I first got my Nintendo; I stare dumbly at search engines, trying to will what I need to know to the screen without me messing up my computer.
Ulmer says in his online chapter that “The part of the apparatus most accessible within the arts and letters disciplines is the practices of imaging. Electracy needs to do for digital imaging what literacy did for the written word. The purpose of my pedagogy, then, is to learn to use the figural as a mode of image reason, as a supplement to the existing institutional commitment to argumentation and analysis.” An ambitious plan, and, perfectly natural because, since my first introduction to electronic discourse, having it at my disposal has helped me in my quest for knowledge (or at least, the knowledge I was told to quest for by various institutions). But I also have a hard time thinking that Ulmer’s grand plan of using electracy to “supplement existing institutional commitments of argumentation and analysis” will ever come to full fruition. Anybody with a computer can put information on the interwebs; look at Wikipedia. Anyone (and it seems just about everyone) can edit and write whatever they want. Teachers and professors refuse to accept anything that’s not from an accredited source, and a majority of what we read and see on the interweb is not an accredited source. Ulmer’s theory that electracy being based on entertainment is a fair assumption, but I don’t have faith this can become the groundbreaking study tool he thinks it’ll become. Just look at our print-based literature program-we can’t even decide on what the canon is. If we’re still stuck trying to figure out what to literatize, how can we figure out what to electracize?
I understand that electracy is still in its infancy and it does show great promise to supplement and aid in the advancement of discourse. For instance, spending hours at the library to track down a pertinent scholarly article has been replaced with Ebsco, JSTOR and the like to just a few minutes and clicks to find what a person needs. And the younger generation has grown up in a culture that basically demands it use computers to communicate, problem solve, educate, and research. Being able to harness the internet to support orality and literacy is already taking effect, but who knows how effective it will become.
As I discussed in the questions above, with the internet there’s no individuality anymore. While the collective is gaining knowledge, it’s becoming increasingly more difficult to find the source of the knowledge. Individuality is becoming lost. It’s easy to find the creator of a print based work; just look at the name under the title. Now, though, there are hundreds of pages using the same information with no clear path back to the originator. What effect will this have on invention? There’s no doubt that the electronic medium is in full force in the educational institutions around the world, but the oral and literate discourses have such a hold on education that I don’t see how Ulmer’s electracy can really become the next step. If by supplementing these traditions he means condensing sources and research material into a few websites, then yes, I can see it becoming a supplement. But there are too many people with too many agendas and too much free time to ever believe that electracy will become the canon that Ulmer believes it to be.
