Electronic Monumentality
Summary disclosure: this is a long post
This article is an excerpt from the introduction from Ulmer’s book about electronic Monumentality. Ulmer conjectures and hypothesizes about the precursors and implications on creating monuments electronically that address, reach and impact individuals and societies. Ulmer suggests starting an internet consultancy (EmerAgency) to educate society about electronic monumentality and MEmorial to act as the implementation method.
Electracy is the literacy of new media and the internet and it makes individual and collective commemoration possible and facilitates the creation of new politics, ethics and education to recognize and address the dromosphere (the pollution of human thought and language (http://heuretics.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/internet-accident/) Ulmer claims that his application of MEmorial could potentially be to electracy as analytical writing is to literacy; a way to think critically and analyze dilemmas, the realm of electracy, in attempt to reach a solution or a puzzle piece to the solution.
He goes on to talk about the implications of apparati on individuals and socities;
- Orality; solved dilemmas by chance and religion. Aided individuals in identification of oneself as a spirit.
- Literacy; brought on the Enlightenment and the move toward science and knowledge. Literacy has helped aid in the identification of selfhood, however “has not done well ameliorating societal ignorance” (xxv)
- Electracy; Because it is a new apparatus (starting with photography in the 19th century) the ramifications are yet to be seen, however one of the main applications as of now appears to be entertainment. Ulmer later asserts that one of the goals of electracy is to “do for the community as a whole what literacy did for individuals.” – or rather give a framework for solving societal dilemmas.
One of the barriers, Ulmer states, for electracy to achieving its societal goal is that our era bases our knowledge/belief on literary testimony, meaning that a story/fact doesn’t have a great impact unless received testimonially and this is likely because of a numbing from exposure to much trauma. There are “concerns about “compassion fatigue” – the failure of citizens to be affected by or at least moved to action in response to the daily rehersal of worldwide misery”. This fatigue from trauma exposure makes electracy’s goal of societal identification and solution difficult.
He continues to layout how MEmorial would be an electracy application for individuals and societies to process, monumentalize, and solve dilemmas and trauma.
The audience is definitely academic peers that are familiar with various works and concepts that Ulmer’s arguments are built upon as it is replete with specific terms with little or no defining and quotes from several previous works. The language is quite sophisticated and the background understanding of this language assumed. Ulmer claims of his MEmorial format as a society problem solving tool and has much on stake. In a sense he is comparing himself to Socrates as he stated that Socrates had an oral application of a literacy mindset and Ulmer is claiming that electracy (in the form of MEmorial) is the way to solve not just individual but societal dilemmas. In projecting these arguments I think Ulmer has a lot at stake.
Personal Comments
In my opinion Ulmer greatly over-generalizes concepts that are not necessarily true. For Example, he claims that literacy has helped the individual identify themselves and process and solve dilemmas through knowledge and education. But how widely is this sense of “literacy” applied and is it always a fail-safe problem-solving self-identifying mode? How widely are any of the apparatus applied?
Also the creation and application of EmerAgency and MEmorial seems so abstract and inapplicable that I do not see how it could achieve the goal that it aims to achieve. Going back to the application of the apparatus, if only a few individuals pursue the application and utilization of apparatus
Inquiry
Below are some questions that I was left with;
1. Ulmer states that society can be ignorant (illustrated by Uncle Sam below) and electracy has the potential to solve this societal ignorance and “compassion fatigue”, however how true is this? In my opinion new media is more often than not abused and taken for granted and allows for individuals to become self-centric and with a sense of deserving (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk)
2. But how widely is this sense of “literacy” applied and is it always a fail-safe problem-solving self-identifying mode?
3. Aside from societal ignorance and compassion fatigue, what are other challenges that electracy will face in it’s attempts to achieve it’s goal of educating individuals and societies with the goal of creating new politics, ethics and education (thus making the world a better place)?
8 comments:
Society IS ignorant, but “electracy,” as Ulmer calls it, will not be able to help our long lost brethren. It definitely has the POTENTIAL to help alleviate the ignorance of our community, but what do we do with that potential? We use it to watch several videos of people getting hit in the nuts, and sharing porn. Books had the potential to educate and advance society, yet that did not seem to happen. Technology benefits everyone, so as the uneducated become more educated, so do the educated (if that makes sense), and there are always those left behind. In this case, electracy has probably made our ignorance even more pronounced because we now have many more reasons to remain ignorant – “I could read a book and do my homework, but I’d rather watch youtube and facebook stalk for the next eight hours. Derr!” Go ahead, disagree with me, I dare you!
I am going to disagree with you Karl. I think that some people specifically those who are procrastinating or those who are lazy, are predisposed to allow us to waste time with technology. I think that some people who grew up with less technolgoy understand how to better utilize the technology offered to them. For example, I grew up with lots of family time and little amounts of the latest toys and gadgets. I got a playstation one the same year that the ps2 came out. I think that some people better understand how technology can be a benefit. For example, the Kindle is a good example of how technology can be beneficial. I think that people without access to technology are missing out on some things, but not others. I don't think that everyone wastes the Internet. This is not to say I am a saint and I don't use the internet for stupid reasons but I think that those who are predisposed to find stupid and pointless things to do anyways are the ones who abuse the technology and as such give the rest of us a bad name.
I think both Karl and Kaitline have good points. The idea that technology is an amazing solution that will revolutionize learning is not an accurate one for several reasons, one of those being the procrastination that Karl mentioned. Even the most dedicated students will become distracted at some point and I know I am guilty of doing everything BUT studying when I have a computer in front of me. However, technology certainly does open up avenues that weren't available before it become as widespread as it is now. The Kindle that Kaitline mentioned is an excellent example, because its theoretical usefulness vs. its practical usefulness has already been somewhat tested. The idea is great - all of your books in one place so you don't have to lug around 6 novels. In practice, however, it certainly has its limitations. Princeton actually ran a pilot program with Kindle DXs in class, shown in this article. One problem, among others, is the disparity between "locations" of pages in the Kindle and page numbers that correspond to the actual text. When it comes to referencing, that can be a nightmare. Overall, knowing an understanding technology certainly won't make you some kind of super-student in most cases, but there are times where utilizing technology could give a bit of an upper hand.
Although I understand Zach's comment about print and kindle page differences, I think if it was a universal choice of everyone having a Kindle for a class, this would not be a problem. I think that if people are trained how to properly utilize technology in ways that it doesn't cause negligence and waste time. For example, classes in Centennial Hall here on campus have turned off wi-fi in the auditorium so students are unable to do anything but take notes. Admittedly, I am sure that some find ways around this, but it stops a majority of people. I remember in high school, we would have a huge number of students who knew various proxys to get around the blockers on school computers. The amount of people who waste time to make it so that they can waste more time is ironic and silly. Technology was created not to be a tool to waste time with but to help expand knowledge bases.
I find myself agreeing with Kaitline in most of these matters. There will ALWAYS be people who find a way around doing what they need to do regardless of what medium they are using. However I will concede that the internet makes it that much easier to do so. I, like the rest of us, am guilty of some pretty terrible procrastination and often times have to do my work away from the computer just to avoid temptation but the ability to resist is there. The value of the gateway to knowledge that the internet provides far outweighs the drawbacks that internet use has on studious behaviour.
Wow, I must have been angry when I posted that last comment. Though while it seemed that most people disagreed with me, I did not see any evidence that really disproved my statements. I admitted that the potential for literatitizing (if Ulmer can make up words, so can I), the masses is there, but we by few means actually use it. There are admittedly many circumstances where new media really does help to educate the masses (Wikipedia inclusive) but the number of those cases do not even compare to the number or usage of less-useful sites out there.
And Kaitline, I'm not sure I understand your playstation example. You don't get the most up-to-date technology, so you better understand its usefulness? (Please don't take me as being mean, I just like being argumentative).
I think that technology is taken for granted and thus abused by society as a whole, but I do think that people do use it for educational purposes, and the overall effect, procrastination included, is an intellectual advancement in society. What needs to be improved, or at least emphasized, is the intellectual aspect of technologies like video games.
One example that I have to support this is my playing of video games in elementary school. I had a Nintendo Game Boy and played it constantly because it was awesome. The catch was that I almost exclusively played RPGs, which by their nature involve a massive amount of reading and logic to play. The reading especially was far above my grade level, but it was fun, so I learned it on my own without even realizing it. My reading performance reflected this and followed me all through my schooling.
Things like this show to me that even the "time waste" technologies can be constructive if used correctly.
i agree with you sean, i did a whole research project about how video games use better teaching strategies than schools do. they are a great way to learn, and if schools could harness their engagement abilities, we might have a more educated society. but once again, my point remains:
People do use technology for an educational purpose, but not nearly as much as it could be. And it does not help to equalize society, because those that are educated have better access and better know how to utilize the technology at hand. Thusly they advance even more quickly than the less educated and the gap becomes greater. (look at how technology made it so easy for the europeans to conquer the americas.
Post a Comment