Hypertext

Landow’s writing on hypertext and what it means for the way we communicate provides a comprehensive conceptual detailing of the rather profound differences of this medium relative to print.

There are a lot of ideas in here.  Perhaps my biggest takeaway idea is that hypertext facilitates a network and what a network emphasizes is the communicative aspect of the artefact (i.e. the text).

The technology of hypertext and the internet seems to sum up everything that defines that nebulous term postmodernity – decentralized, non-hierarchical systems of organisation, etc, etc. –  that prioritize the dialogue and the discourse incited by a text (if that’s where you began) – rather than the sacredness and infallibility of the text alone.

Although, in the era of the digital technology and hypertext, hierarchies do of course still exist, masquerading as community – look at Facebook or Google, for example (I’m not singling you out here Google, it’s just you’re prone to exemplification and superlatives).  I’m reminded of a quote by English cultural theorist Raymond Williams talking about the tendency of the most powerful groups to shape the ways technologies are used (way back in 1974) – which he describes as:

‘[a] counter-revolution, in which…a few para-national corporations, with their attendant states and agencies, could further reach into our lives’.

Nevertheless, hypertext as a technology seems to inherently favor a kind of socially democratic form of community.  So a homegrown website might be bought out by a corporation once it becomes popular, for advertising revenue, but then another homegrown site will pop up.

Anyway, I’ve digressed somewhat. …

The immediacy of hypertext allows us to follow a thread of enquiry immediately and if we are to participate in a community, which the online environment encourages, then we have to communicate our information, our knowledge, our thoughts – rather than keeping it private (notes scribbled along the margins of a printed page) – and that I think can markedly stimulate the way and the speed at which we learn… (so long as we are literate enough about the network to be wary of possible pitfalls).

References:

Landow, George P. Hypertext 3.0: Critical Theory and New Media in an Era of Globalization. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2006.

Freedman, D. (2002). A’Technological Idiot’? Raymond Williams and Communications Technology. Information, Communication & Society5(3), 425-442.

Loops, models & learning

I had not been familiar with Chris Argyris and Donald Schön’s theories prior to reading this overview by Mark K. Smith, but what struck me was the general applicability and currency of their ideas regarding single- and double-loop

Oversight via (self-) reflexivity is the crucial component which distinguishes double-loop learning favourably from single-loop learning, with Argyis and Schön contending that it results in a more profound and substantial learning experience.  Put more simply, knowing how we learn is incredibly useful in guiding as to what we should be learning (and why).

While these theories and their applications were conceived for (professional) organisations – clearly these principles can be applied to individuals as well (as Smith points out).  Certainly this resonated with me as ‘double-loop’ learning, or what I might call ‘self-critique’, forms the cornerstone of psychoanalysis, which is an area I’m very interested in.

Thoughts on network literacy

Reading through this week’s chosen texts, I was reminded of one of Albert Einstein’s (many) famous quotes … “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”

I try to practice what I preach whereever possible, as much as I do enjoy learning new words – and sometimes dropping them gratuitously into discussions, just for intellectual lols.  Perspicacity.

It’s also a profesional habit that I’ve had to adopt in the exercise of script editing, where we (editors) have been known to viciously cut, condense and clarify anything which remotely verges on verbosity.  It’s a mandate of the medium.  Mind you, not all such actions necessarily produce better drama, but in a format as rigid as television programming, time and budget are ever-present standover men that often get in the way of the desire to create something of substantial quality and truth.

Anyhow – getting back to this week’s readings.  I found Adrian’s overview of print vs. network literacy very helpful because I find that the way that I learn, before I become practically competent, I have to sufficiently digest the concepts underpinning its use (something of an existential bent…).  Above all, it explained these terms simply, which I appreciated.

More generally, I reflected on the notion of literacy and culture, and how we tend to learn through adopting agreed, socially established, practices.  The advent of print media is now so long behind us that it can be harder to appreciate the historical contexts under which it formed – for what reasons, purposes, etc, etc.  We’re in an interesting time now because we’re still experiencing the rapid evolution of digital media and can track the events (political, economic) which shape its evolution, as they occur.  I suppose that last sentence proves I’m not much of a technological determinist, although it might also be argued by some that much of the technology (as ‘machinery/hardware’) is already formed, and that simply its applications are diversifying.  Ahh… I could argue with myself all day long.

I suppose it’s natural that literacy would be socially-taught because literacy represents the fundamental skill that enables us to interact or engage in social context.  For instance, on the topic of adult illiteracy, issues such as isolation and social exclusion are common themes which arise.

Meanwhile, I found Paul Graham’s reflection on the essay anything but concise.  There are some interesting insights and contexts which are raised, no doubt, but by the time I got to his section on ‘Meander’ and his own confession that “sometimes I tend to meander…” I thought had witnessed a brilliant moment of personal reflection and connection with the author.  And it was at that point, I must admit, that I stopped reading!

Week 1 reading – Blogs in Media Education

I found it interesting to consider blogs relative to older media (i.e. those existing prior to the advent of the internet) which were similarly designed to faciliate communal exchange; the newspaper comes to mind (classifieds or social pages – or even early examples of dating profiles) might serve as primitive examples of individuals being able to create and disseminate a public persona which is accessible to the general public.

For me, the notion of the audience is central.  A physical medium substantially limits the user’s ability to create and share a public persona, but the limitations of print also protect the individual from privacy issues.  Conversely, through the internet we can create sophisticated and elaborate personas but we’re also taking a greater risk by putting out this information into a slightly unknown arena, where the risk of being hacked or compromised exists.

Blogs also promote a greater level of self-reflexivity and consideration of what an individual might share (about themselves and/or their networks), given its completely transparent quality, as opposed to ‘private’ identities & communities which exist through social media such as Facebook & Twitter.