DIGITAL REVOLUTION & CONVERGENCE CULTURE

writing as a conceptual term.The next few are a little harder to distinguish between, especially because of the limitations of Wordle. For instance, Wordle treats “text” and “texts” as different words—both of which are relatively prominent in the Wordle. I suspect, though, that had they been treated as the same key term, the map would have generated “text(s)” as a much larger word in the cloud. The same is likely true for “context” and “contexts.” Additionally, I am choosing to ignore the words “new” and “think” because I do not think they are representational of our course’s key terms. “New” most likely pairs with “media” or “technology,” but does not stand well on its own. The word “think,” I would bet, is just part of “I think…” statements. Perhaps I have spent too much time discussing my methods—when really what I am supposed to be doing is explaining which terms I have chosen, why those terms, and how they relate to one another. This preamble is to say that while Wordle has limitations, it served as a useful tool for helping me reflect and identify central terms. To that end, I have selected “literacy,” “context(s),” “social,”  “media,” and “digital.”

Reading + Composing = Literacy?

            Although I am slightly conflicted about conflating “reading” and “composing” into the single term “literacy,” I cannot argue that literacy plays a prominent role in this course. In fact, four of the five artifacts in my e-Portfolio address literacy conceptually, the most obvious of which is my Literacy Artifact. For this assignment, I proposed the Accelerated Reader program as a literacy artifact because I believe that in the present culture, many people associate literacy with standardized programs like Accelerated Reader. The Accelerated Reader program presents a version of literacy in which people’s abilities are compared and ranked against one another, and furthermore, wherein literacy in a given area comes to mean rote memorization of facts or details rather than a learning process aimed to foster understanding and flexible use. Although I now find literacy to be more dynamic and nuanced than this artifact suggests, it has taken me a long time to reach this new understanding. Our understanding of literacy will only become more complicated as we move toward the digital. If a person must attain digital literacy in addition to print in order to become literate, what consequences will this have? Certainly, there are affordances for both print and digital literacies at one’s disposal. Multiple literacies mean more options for reading and composing, but I have to wonder if more is always better. By incorporating digital literacy, we have raised the bar for what it means to be literate, which will inevitably exclude people. And, because literacy is tied to cultural values, exclusion has incredibly high stakes. In my SRR “Ong, Bitzer, and Rice: The Importance of Context,” I explore the ways in which our literacy practices are shaped by context. When we apply contextual frameworks to trace or understand a text, we need to remember that what we see and acknowledge as context may be influenced by our social or cultural values. In other words, depending on our values (for instance, what is considered literate or not), we may not fully perceive or understand the context of a given text. Because literacy is tied to cultural values, how we choose to define the parameters of literacy has real consequences. Moving forward, I think we need to re-examine what we mean when we say literacy, what impacts this has on the digital, and what role context plays in our understanding.

Context(s)

            In addition to its relationship to literacy, I also see context(s) as a central theme running throughout the course. Most of our readings situate their understandings of digital media, new technologies, and literacy practices in contextual terms. Many took a historical approach, tracing out antecedent technologies and media to achieve this end. In this way, we see that digital technologies and their affordances are not new, but rather evolved. Brown and Duguid present an argument that in order to really understand information technology, we must look around at the context in which it is created, used, and shared. They claim, “Attending too closely to information overlooks the social context that helps people understand what that information might mean and why it matters” (5).  A prime example of the ways in which context affects our interpretation is with social media. While some might argue that social media is new and is here to destroy the ability of individuals to engage in intellectual and/or meaningful discourse, others are less likely to say that social media is a “new thing.” Although uses of media have changed, those uses of media stem from the same human impulses to circulate information, to share knowledge, and to connect communities. Viewing social media within the context of sharing knowledge and information allows us to draw attention to resources people use, including other people, focus on practice not process, and differentiate between knowledge and information.  Contexts are not only social, however, but also economic, political, social, and cultural, all of which shape our epistemologies and composing practices. Considering context is especially important given shifts towards new kinds of composing, such as assemblage, remix, and multimodality. Arola and Arola remind us that texts and objects are active entities, not passive objects “ripe for the picking” (7). In our collaborative SRR, “The New Work of Composing: Affordances and Limitations,” Julianna, Jeff, and I discuss contextual knowledge as vital to the new work of composing. Composing involves creating connections between pre-existing and emergent content and cultures. And, in addition, the connections drawn in these new compositions can (ostensibly) carry more context and content with them than their solely print/alphabetic counterparts. Whereas the connections in the older compositions were mostly limited to quotes and works cited pages, the connections in new compositions can include whole selections from, or direct access to, the conversations that inform them. Our choice of what texts to include when composing must be guided by the various contexts in which they emerge. In the learning that lies ahead, I will strive to remain cognizant as a composer of what contexts I draw from and compose in. Additionally, considering context in our discussions of multimodality, assemblage, and remix reminds me that language, meaning, and composing are all fluid and contingent.

Social

            While there is, admittedly, overlap between context(s) and social, I am choosing to present social as its own central term. To me, social does not just refer to an aspect of context, but as a practice in and of itself. Although I believe that technologies and media have always been social in nature, I think digital technologies have changed the speed and the scope of social interactions. This is largely because of online social networks. As Porter explains, the revolutionary change to composing came not with the computer, but with the network. Networks change the way we compose, the way we think, and the way we know. While not all networks are digital, the social nature of networks echoes throughout this course. From Brown and Duguid in The Social Life of Information, to Porter's discussion of social networks in the public labs, to Gladwell's explanation of the role of paper for air traffic controllers, I think social is often at the root of conversations about technologies and digital media. Networks help to connect people, build communities, and share knowledge. And, although non-digital networks do these same things, I believe digital technologies have changed the speed and the scope. Media can spread and transform faster than ever, and anyone who has access to the Internet can participate online. The social nature of digital technology was evident in my Circulation Map, wherein I traced the phrase “break the internet,” a popular Internet hashtag. Being able to trace the circulation of this phrase gave me a better sense of the complex, messy, and interconnected ways that media spreads and circulates. Jenkins, Ford, and Green offer the concept of “spreadable media,” which allows for more and more people to "take an active role in shaping the creation and circulation of media texts" (226). Seeing how people collectively shape what content is created as well as determine what spreads online invites me to consider how our values might affect the circulation of various media—a question I took up in my circulation map. I still do not have any definitive answers, only more questions. I also wonder how digital technology has shaped what counts as social and what social actions are meaningful. Does a “like” constitute a meaningful social interaction? Does a “retweet”? These, among others, are questions that we should consider moving forward. 

(Re)Media(tion)

            As is evident by my complicated subtitle, I see media as central to several of the conversations we have taken up in this course. In fact, it has already surfaced extensively in my exploration of the previous terms. I have chosen media as a term deliberately, rather than text. Although text often connotes something composed, while media I think of as pre-existing, ready to circulate, I think media offers more transparently the different ways by which we can communicate, especially given the affordances of the digital age. We have social media, digital media, and new media—all of which are encompass text, sound, video, image—and often more than one at a time. Additionally, choosing media enables me to also address remediation,  since Bolter and Grusin argue that “all media is remediation” (54) because it functions dialectically with earlier media.  Even as technologies advance to try to erase the medium, they are still compared to the very media they try to erase (e.g. “Like TV only better”). For Bolter and Grusin, media does not and cannot exist in isolation. In this way, media is tied to context. Furthermore, the new work of composing is tied to media. As we look to remediate, remix, and compose multimodal texts, we often engage in hypermediacy, drawing attention to the media as media. I also see media as related to materiality. Choosing a medium to compose in or selecting media to compose with are opportunities to think about the potential of what is possible. Awareness of the medium certainly played a role in the composing of Vines for the National Day on Writing (which I have included in my e-Portfolio). Vines only allow for six seconds of video with sound, which are posted with the intention of being viewed and shared online. This knowledge of the medium shaped the composers’ choice of what to say and how to say it. Looking forward, I am not sure whether we will embrace hypermediacy or continue to try to shroud our media in manufactured immediacy, or even which option would be better. However, media offers a way into discussing attention, materiality, composing, circulation, and so much more that it simply cannot be ignored.

Digital

            I struggled with choosing this as a central term over technologies; in fact, I’m still struggling. Clearly, digital is important—it’s even in the course title. However, I can also see how a more encompassing term might be technologies. After all, that would also include digital. I chose digital, though, because to me, the digital is the exigence for the conversations we have taken up in this course. We examine antecedent technologies, postal networks, ecological frameworks, and so much more as a way of understanding and theorizing the digital. Throughout my e-Portfolio, I reference the digital in conversation with literacy, with contexts, with social, and with media. I think it is central to the course because it is essential to our vocabulary. However, there is some question about whether we should develop new vocabulary for what we do in with technologies in digital spaces. Is composing a sufficient term? What about reading? If not, what might those new terms be? As we progress in the digital age, we might benefit from defining new terms that fully embrace the affordances of these new interfaces for engaging with media in various contexts.