14. Kate:
Thornton’s argument suggests that handwriting as a technology is capable of
indicating particular qualities of those employing the technology—whether or
not an individual or group is indicated is based on the specific cultural
understanding of community values. Is this true of other literacy
technologies? In our contemporary moment, handwriting doesn’t hold much
cultural capital anymore— as individuals, most of our written communication
probably happens via typing and word-processing. Is it possible for typing as a
technology to indicate particular qualities and characteristics of individuals or
groups?
Rachel:
What hierarchies do we have in place today in our system of handwriting, if
any? Is simply placing text into printed form a demonstration of status in
ways?
Monday, March 7, 2011
15. Tim:
How does Gitelman help us dispense with fears of technology’s
determinism? What method does she propose and enact to help
us locate these tools in the cultural practices of people in places
with purposes?
Monday, March 7, 2011
16. Ben:
We know that Gitleman responds to technological determinism
and describes a more complex and subtle rhetorical technological
development, but does her text respond at all to the “technology
as neutral debate”? Does it matter? I think it matters for where we
focus our critique. And it seems to me that each step away from
technological determinism is a step towards technology as
neutral–as a tool (or agency) in a wider social practice. And I guess
I’m still figuring out the extent to which we place responsibility on
technology for the social ills it sometimes creates. Thoughts?
Monday, March 7, 2011
17. Tim:
How does the leaping of text from page and eye to wax cylinder
and ear change its possible reception? How does it open
transformative appropriations? How does it shut them down?
Monday, March 7, 2011
18. Ben:
Gitleman talks a lot about inscription. How does she define it? How far does
her idea of inscription (reading X rays like a book, reading meters) go for
describing the textual nature of technology? Inscription seems like such a
pliable term that I wonder if it loses its descriptive power over Gitleman’s
book. If we look hard enough, can’t we find inscription everywhere?
Monday, March 7, 2011
19. Ben and Tim:
“For the “liberal apologists” who Burke responds to, science is
seen as good and absolute (30). In the Grammar of Motives, Burke
says that the area of applied science equals the elimination of
purpose (286). The question of “can we do it?” replaces the
question of purpose: “should we do it?” Science, as an autonomous
entity, does it because it can. But in response, Burke describes
science as an agency (Rhetoric 29), and thus as a tool in a wider
context of actions and purpose. Burke does not see science as
autonomous from political and economic structures saying, “a
science takes on the moral qualities of the political or social
movements with which it becomes identified” (31). Thus, “Insofar
as a faulty political structure perverts human relations, we might
reasonably expect to find a correspondingly perverted
science” (29). Nothing is purely autonomous, science also exists in
the realm of identification and division, and in so far as it does,
science is subject to rhetorical concerns.” (TEAM SCENE!)
Monday, March 7, 2011
