Writing New Media
Theory and Applications for Expanding the Teaching of CompositionBy Anne Frances Wysocki Johndan Johnson-Eilola Cynthia L. Selfe Geoffrey SircUTAH STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Copyright © 2004 Utah State University Press
All right reserved.ISBN: 978-0-87421-575-5Contents
Acknowledgments...............................................................................................................................vPreface.......................................................................................................................................viiOpening New Media to Writing: Openings and Justifications Anne Frances Wysocki...............................................................1Students Who Teach Us: A Case Study of A New Media Text Designer Cynthia L. Selfe............................................................43Toward New Media Texts: Taking Up the Challenges of Visual Literacy Cynthia L. Selfe.........................................................67Box-Logic Geoffrey Sirc......................................................................................................................111The Sticky Embrace of Beauty: On Some Formal Problems in Teaching about the Visual Aspects of Texts Anne Frances Wysocki.....................147The Database and the Essay: Understanding Composition as Articulation Johndan Johnson-Eilola.................................................199Bibliography of print resources...............................................................................................................237Works cited...................................................................................................................................257Index.........................................................................................................................................265About the authors.............................................................................................................................268
Chapter One
OPENING NEW MEDIA TO WRITING: openings & justifications Anne Frances Wysocki
Do you miss that thick richly-printed rug that (apparently) used to be under your feet, the one into which (for at least several of the past centuries, as various theorists describe it) you could lose yourself in contemplation of its well-ordered and contained patterns? It's the rug that was pulled out from under you (and from under all the rest of us who teach writing in one form or another) within the last 15-20 years, predicted and described and shaped in words like those in the following quotation, from Jay Bolter some ten years ago now, from the introduction to the first edition of Writing Space, where Bolter claimed that "the printed book"
seems destined to move to the margin of our literate culture. The issue is not whether print technology will completely disappear; books may long continue to be printed for certain kinds of texts and for luxury consumption. But the idea and the ideal of the book will change: print will no longer define the organization and presentation of knowledge, as it has for the past five centuries. This shift from print to the computer does not mean the end of literacy. What will be lost is not literacy itself, but the literacy of print, for electronic technology offers us a new kind of book and new ways to read and write. (2)
Or, much more recently, here is Gunther Kress, writing in the preface to his book Literacy in the New Media Age, claiming that we are at a
moment in the long history of writing when four momentous changes are taking place simultaneously: social, economic, communicational, and technological change. The combined effects of these are so profound that it is justifiable to speak of a revolution in the landscape of communication. [...] Social changes are unmasking the structures and frames which had given a relative stability to forms of writing over the last two hundred years or so. Economic changes are altering the uses and purposes of the technology of writing. Communicational change is altering the relations of the means by which we represent our meanings, bringing image into the center of communication more insistently than it has been for several hundred years, and thereby challenging the dominance of writing. Lastly, technological change is altering the role and significance of the major media of dissemination. (9)
The chapters in our book do not argue with these comments; we may disagree with the periods of time mentioned or the particularities of the changes described or the drasticness that can be so psychologically compelling, but we do take as given that writing is changing. Writing is always changing (to see changes, we only need compare William James's books to those of Dr. Phil, or The Rake's Progress to The X-Men, or a metal matrix of the letter Q for the printing press to a software Postscript Q), but part of what has changed the warp and woof that used to seem so steady underneath us is precisely that we are now aware of the warp and woof, that we are aware of the complex weaves of writing as a material practice. Writing would not seem so different from what it was 30 or 300 years ago, really, if all that composed it was simply the words we hear in our heads when we read or if we define writing as being able by any means to make lettershapes visible to someone else as words. But we do understand, now, that writing, like all literate practices, only exists because it functions, circulates, shifts, and has varying value and weight within complexly articulated social, cultural, political, educational, religious, economic, familial, ecological, political, artistic, affective, and technological webs (you can name others, I am sure); we know that, in our places and times, writing is one of many operations by which we compose and understand our selves and our identities and our abilities to live and work with others. And so teachers of writing tend to be alert to how a change in any articulation of that long list above of webs of practice and institution sends waves of change shimmering elsewhere, including-necessarily-through our experiences of self and world: we know, for example, that changing the number of people in a class from 18 to 25 will change how we teach and the kinds of pedagogic relations we can develop with people in the class; we know that changes in testing requirements for college admission change the color of who is in our classes and hence who earns PhDs (see Crain, for example, on such changes at the City University of New York). The four of us-Cynthia Selfe, Geoffrey Sirc, Johndan Johnson-Eilola, and I-have written this book, pulled its chapters together, precisely because what we know as teachers of writing (of composition, of literacy, of rhetoric, of technical communication) is what enables us to see changes now occurring and is also what prepares us to shape change, actively and with care, in accord with what we know to be effective and just and necessary in our classroom practices and theories.
What we offer in this book is not, cannot ever be, a new complete rug to replace the old one shaped by writing, as though that rug ever existed as anything but an imaginary comfort. What we offer in this book is necessarily the equivalent of carpet scraps, some tentative weaves, bits and pieces of matting and colorful materials for you to consider and, if they seem at all useful, to arrange as they fit for you now. What we offer are some openings-some ranges of active possibilities-we each see in this particular time of change, openings that allow and encourage us to shift what we do in our thinking and classes so that we do not forget, so that we make actively present in our practices, how writing is continually changing material activity that shapes just who we can be and what we can do.
Let me move, then, from the broadly introductory to the more specific, by laying out five particular and connected openings that I, as a teacher of composition and rhetoric, now see for my practices:
1 The need, in writing about new media in general, for the material thinking of people who teach writing
2 A need to focus on the specific materiality of the texts we give each other
3 A need to define "new media texts" in terms of their materialities
4 A need for production of new media texts in writing classrooms
5 A need for strategies of generous reading
These openings are not precisely the ones my fellow writers in this collection see, but there are overlaps and similarities-and so I hope that my words can serve as some ground and introduction for the following chapters.
The first three openings I wish to consider involve what Bruce Horner, in his introduction to Terms of Work for Composition: A Materialist Critique, calls "the materiality of writing" as it exists for writing teachers and people in writing classrooms. Horner provides a long listing of what might constitute that materiality, so let me then give you his list, which is impressive and so requires a long repeat:
That materiality may be understood in terms of writing technologies, an attribute of writing now being given renewed attention because of the recent shift from the technologies of paper and pen to computer software and hardware. Or it might be understood more broadly to refer to a host of socioeconomic conditions contributing to writing production, such as the availability of certain kinds of schooling, number of students in writing classes, student financial aid (and the need for it), public health, access to time and quiet. Yet more broadly, the materiality of writing might be understood to refer to networks for the distribution of writing, controls over publishing (in whatever forms), and global relations of power articulated through these. And it may be understood to include the particular subjectivities-the consciousness-produced by the conditions of "postmodern," "post-Fordist," and other socioeconomic conditions. Similarly, the materiality of writing may be understood to include social relations-say, between students and teachers in the writing classroom; relations of race, gender, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, generation, and region, among others within the classroom and/or the larger social realm; "personal" (e.g., familial) relations-and the lived experience of the history of these relations to which any act of writing may be seen as responding. The materiality of the work of teaching composition can be understood to include physical classroom conditions (size, heating, furniture, lighting, number of students); the teacher's physical health and office and library resources; clerical support, teaching load, salary and job security; intra- and interdepartmental relations between composition staff and other faculty; characteristics of the student population; relationships between the academic institution and state and commercial institutions; relations among members of the Composition "profession" and between those members and other organizations and constituencies; and teachers' lived experience of the history of those relations to which any act of teaching may be seen as responding. (xviii-xix)
Horner gives two cautions after his listing: first, that the listing should help us recognize that "no representation of teaching or writing can exhaust the full range of their materiality" (xix) and, second, relying on Giddens's theories of structure, that the listing should remind us that agency and structure are interdependent. We have agency, that is, in so far as we recognize how we are positioned by and hence can work with and within our particular historically-situated and contingent material structures, all the ones that Horner lists and all the ones my own more abstract lists above imply. Because the structures into which we have grown up are neither necessary nor fixed, they can be changed when we forge new positions for ourselves among them or when we construct new relations between the different structures that matter to us.
Teachers of writing recognize that writing classes can easily decontextualize writing such that agency and material structures look independent. The way school can seem separated from other institutions (the ones that constitute the "real world") can keep the work of classrooms from seeming that it has any value or purpose outside the class or the requirements of a degree schedule, and people in writing classes can for that reason among others (like the architectural isolation of classrooms and campuses from other social spaces) often feel they are writing by themselves, as isolated, separated individuals with no particular social, cultural, or historical location. Many writing teachers in the last decades have worked to develop classroom practices that help people in their classes see-through what they write-their particular locations in time and place, and hence how they are shaped by but can in turn shape those locations (and themselves) through textual work. Think here, for example, of the literacy inventories, literacy anecdotes, and autoethnographies that Linda Brodkey describes and shows us how to use so that their composers can see "that their personal histories are also cultural histories" (209). Think of the service learning classrooms in which "literacy itself is both the service and the subject of investigation" (Julier 144), making it possible for us to see connections among the practices of service-and, importantly, the practices that make such service necessary-and of literacy with the hope that, as Bruce Herzberg puts it, we might find it "possible not only to question and analyze the world, but also to imagine transforming it" (317). Think also of the work teachers of technical communication do in contextualizing technology so that we do not see and use composing technologies as neutral tools without effect on what we write, on who reads what we write, or on who we become through writing: as James Porter, for example, reminds us,
every act of writing in the workplace involves the exercise of power. In some cases, this exercise of power can be unfair, manipulative, exclusionary, harmful, or illegal-and technical communicators have to be alert to the ways in which their online writing can do harm, can oppress, can represent unfair use of others' work. ("Legal Realities" 67)
It is this kind of thinking, action, and advocacy-focused specifically on texts and how situated people use them to make things happen in all kinds of contexts-that I believe needs to expand to new media work, as I describe through considering my five possible openings for how what we know about writing can usefully affect how we approach new media.
(Notice, too, for the moment, that I have just mentioned "new media" for the first time, without defining the term; I will define it in a section several pages ahead, in the context of the larger arguments I am making.)
OPENING 1
THE NEED, IN WRITING ABOUT NEW MEDIA IN GENERAL, FOR THE MATERIAL THINKING OF PEOPLE WHO TEACH WRITING
I have not argued here and will not argue that we need to open writing classes to new media. There already exists plenty of such reasoned arguments (on why to incorporate the visual aspects of texts, for example, see Faigley; George; or Stroupe; on approaching literacies through multiple modalities, see the New London Group or any of the works of Kress alone or with van Leeuwen). Many people already include various visual- or Web-based activities in their classrooms, and, besides, it is impossible to pretend that the lives of the people coming to school have not been shaped by texts that don't look or function like academic essays. Instead, I want to argue that new media needs to be opened to writing. I want to argue that writing about new media needs to be informed by what writing teachers know, precisely because writing teachers focus specifically on texts and how situated people (learn how to) use them to make things happen. Such consideration is mostly lacking from existing writing about new media.
I do not pretend to have read everything that describes itself as being about new media, but what I have read from outside the areas of rhetoric, composition, literacy studies, or technical communication breaks into two broad categories: there is writing about how to analyze or design isolated individual texts and there is writing about the broad contexts and functioning of media structures in general. There is little or nothing that bridges those two categories to help composers of texts think usefully about effects of their particular decisions as they compose a new media text, to help composers see how agency and materiality are entwined as they compose. I do not want to be seen here as saying or implying that what has been written so far about new media is useless-far from it: there is a tremendous amount of thoughtful, sustained, and exciting research and speculation about new media (see, for example, the "Print Resources" section at the back of this book). It is just that there is little concrete encouragement for the kinds of embedded and embodied practices writing teachers, from much practice and reflection and theorizing, know are necessary to help students-and teachers, and others-have any kind of alert agency with and within the structures of their composing lives.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Writing New Mediaby Anne Frances Wysocki Johndan Johnson-Eilola Cynthia L. Selfe Geoffrey Sirc Copyright © 2004 by Utah State University Press. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
