Week 2 Reading Topic

Assignment:

• Laws of Media:  The New Science, Marshall and Eric McLuhan

Issue:  Is today’s communication technology changing the way humans evolve?

In the Law of Media, The New Science by Marshall and Eric McLuhan, they theorize that there are four laws of media. The four laws help describe the properties of each medium or technology.  These laws help us understand the effect media and technology have on human culture and development. The law of extension – Our use of technology or a new medium extends the physical or mental reach of the body or mind.  The law of reversal – Every new technology contains the seeds of its own reversal. The law of retrieval – With new technology, we are able to access a skill set that we used to possess in a past evolution.  And the law of obsolescence- The new media or technology makes a previous technology obsolete.  These laws help us understand what the effects are on our culture when a new medium or technology is adopted.

Although the laws of media are the premise of the entire book, what I found interesting about the reading is the following quote, where the father-son team asserts that in the technology situation we find ourselves in today creates a paradox of literacy and orality. “The paradox today is that the ground of the latest Western technologies is electronic and simultaneous, and thus is structurally right-hemisphere and ‘Oriental’ and oral in its nature and effects.  This situation began with the telegraph more than a century ago.  Still, the overwhelming pattern of procedures in the Western world remains lineal, sequential, and connected in political and legal institutions, and also in education and commerce, but not in entertainment or art.  A formula for complete chaos!”  Page 80.

I believe what the authors are stating is that the new western technologies are bringing back an oral focus to our communication structure, where our previous communication methods have been based in communication technologies of a literacy based nature. 

When the previous authors that we have been studying speak about communication mediums, I believe they are referring to a higher based dialogue of rhetoric – communication based on subjects of an academic or philosophical nature.  They have not been referring to colloquial, informal communication.  It is my understanding that the McLuhan’s are referencing all forms of communication – formal and informal.  However, for the purposes of this subject let’s just take their laws and apply them to formal communication. 

What they are saying is that when two people communicate in a formal way, about academic or philosophical ideas – the ways in which they communicate now have evolved from primarily orality to literacy and are now in a hybrid orality-literacy environment.  Let’s take the example of a PhD student communicating the findings of his thesis.  He would take a year researching his thesis topic and all the while he would probably be either blogging or use twitter to communicate discrete findings during the year of research.  There would be an incessant dialogue between him and his colleagues concerning the topics he is studying during his thesis.  Upon the final presentation of his thesis, he would certainly document his findings in a well thought out, highly structured paper and presentation.  And if his thesis paper was novel and well prepared, he might even find his thesis included in an academic journal.  This is an example of how the orality of online communication (Orality) and the writing and presentation of his thesis (Literacy) are combined to present an idea.

My question about this evolutionary cycle in the way we communicate is whether the convergence of orality and literacy into a new stage in our communication advancement will have an effect on who we are – how our brains work chemically and even what changes can be anticipated physiologically in our human bodies. We are just at the beginning of this stage of this technology evolution and we have no idea what the real ramifications will be.  However, one has to wonder if humans that can react better to the communication culture that is jointly based on orality and literacy will adapt better and survive.  Will humans that have a brain makeup that can live in a constant state of “always being on” be more successful culturally and professionally and therefore be more financially sound, allowing them to have more children, raise them with more advantages, and pass down their genes of “always being on”.  What will our culture look like in 1000 years?  Will this new technology environment eventually weed out people who cannot deal with the orality/literacy new world?  Will people who need to meditate, take time to concentrate, be unable to multitask become a thing of the past? 

It is my belief that some of the angst regarding new technology, new developments is really based on this fear of the human race.  I think deep down people have a fear of being left behind because they know they are in some cases, unable to adapt.  Humans are created with a base need to survive and I believe that each time a human  is forced to stretch there is a deep-seated fear of inevitable extinction.

Week 1 Reading Topic

Assignments:

• Plato, Phaedrus
• Walter Ong, selections from Orality and Literacy.
• Linda Stone, “May I Have Your Attention, Please?”

Issue:  Will verbal communication and written communication converge in the evolution of teen texting?

For quite a while, I have had an issue with the incorrect spelling and abbreviations used in SMS texting.  I realize that language is an  ever evolving set of symbols and acknowledge that modern usage influences acceptable spelling, however I just didn’t appreciate the keyboard shortcuts that were used to, what I believed was, the detriment of our established language. 

This is not the first time that I felt like I had to take a stand in support of our linguistic system.  I also have been irritated by incorrect spelling propagated for commercial purposes.  I have delibertly avoided providers of “Kwik” dry cleaning.  And I often shirk when I see restaurants offering drive “thru” service.  I respect the etymological process and even somtimes use a hypen when, experiencing etymology in action, I realize two words are beginning to become one (see future usage of “auto-correct” in this post) .  I have been a fan of the Oxford English Dictionary since high school and strongly believe that to truly understand a word is to know its etymological roots.  However, I have had difficulty embracing texting abbreviations when they seem to deliberately disrespect proper language, usage and spelling.

I started using texting as a form of communication a few years ago.  On average, I send about 40 texts a day.  Comparatively speaking, I probably send fewer than average amount of text messages per day per avid user but nevertheless, I feel I spend a good deal of my day reading and responding to text messages from friends and coworkers.  Even though I am comfortable with the technology, I am consistently faced with a brand new emotion when typing out a quick retort to a friend’s text.  Initially, I want to reply with a quick text message but I find myself spending much of my response time laboring over the complete and correct spelling of every pain staking word.  I spend much of this time arguing with my iPhone’s auto-correct feature (or defect, as the case may be).  I am sure my long narrative style texts have left the recipients of my text messages with frequent head shaking– indicating their pity of my lack of texting astuteness. 

However, after reading Plato’s Phaedrus and Ong’s Orality & Literacy, I have begun to rethink my approach to the language of texting.  Maybe I should embrace this new wave in the evolution of the language.  Maybe I can become an active participant in the process of this language evolution.  Instead of typing out “probably,” I will start to use the shorter “prolly” to indicate that I might meet my friends at our favorite restaurant.  Maybe I can begin to use letters – their phonemic sounds–  instead of typing out the words–like “b” for “be”.  Who knows, I might even be able to start using the numeral 2 to indicate the words “to”, “too” and “two”.  After all, having three words for one sound is really not that efficient anyway.  If the recipient is confused, he could always figure out the meaning by the context anyway.  Teen texting could lead to the exposure of more inefficiencies in our language.  We could be grossly overlooking a generation by thinking they have no respect for language when in fact they are using our language in a much more efficient way.

Ong also explained how the Chinese linguistic system is more complex than our English language.  Perhaps the teen linguistic system is actually making our language more complex by making it more efficient–using abbreviations and phonemic sounds to represent words/thoughts instead the actual letters that spell the word.

Plato (through Socrates) indicated that he was opposed to writing.  One reason he was opposed to the act of writing is that he believed that having a written text represent someone’s thoughts left a key element out of a good philosophical argument:  the questioning and subsequent rebuttal.  The technology of texting takes the written word and makes it into a conversation.  Not only that but texting removes Plato’s chief criticism of writing.  With texting, there is the ever-present ability to question and provide a rebuttal.  Sure writing letters and formal correspondence in previous centuries also provided a conversation flow but the conversation was constantly interrupted by mail service.  The technology of the typical mail service limited the flow of the conversation.  And in current time, email communication has shortened the delay,  but email conversations are still not as instantanous as texting.  With texting, electronic conversations can continue in an almost simultaneous manner.  Other than issues around cell phone reception, there is very little time delay in a text message conversation.

In addition, texting language is now being used in day to day verbal communication as well.  In a meeting last week, a sales representative said “LOL” when another meeting attendee made a joke.  Initially I was confused as why someone would choose to say that instead of just laughing (out loud).  Now, however, it is just another manifestation of how our language is always evolving.

After reading the Ong and Plato texts, I now have a new appreciation for what effect teen texting is having on our current linguistic system.   There are more written conversations taking place now more than at any other time before in history.  We are constantly “talking” and our language is evolving at a more rapid pace than ever before.  The conversation is on.