Wysocki presents her discussion on the use of new media in writing with more of a pedagogical approach rather than arguing starting from the very definition of new media or other related concepts. She begins with some expectation of the changes that new media brings two decades ago: Wysocki cites Bolter in his Writing Space that, as the computer take place, what is changing is “the idea and the ideal of the book” and literacy rather than the to- be-or-not-to-be-problem of print technology; She also echoes Kress in summarizing the macro-innovation in writing in social, economic, communicational, and technological aspects (qtd. 1).
By emphasizing the fact that writing is constently changing, Wysocki argues that scholars of composition are mostly aware of the complex weaves of writing as a material practice, however, they need to be more opened to the use of the new media and the teaching of what they refer to as the “new media text” (2-23).
Based on Horner’s argument, she underlines “the materiality of writing” for writing teachers and the people in writing classrooms: “it may be understood in terms of writing technologies, […] or it might be understood more broadly to refer to a host of socioeconomic conditions contributing to writing production […] or networks for the distribution of writing [that] controls over publishing, and global relations of power articulated through these[…] or to include the particular subjectivities […] produced by the conditions of ‘postmodern,’ ‘post-Fordist,’ and other socioeconomic conditions. Similarly, it may be understood to include social relations” (qtd. 3). Via the list, Wysocki underlines “two cautions”: 1) ‘no representation of teaching or writing can exhaust the full range of their materiality,’ and 2) that agency and structure are interdependent (4).
Accordingly, Wysocki argues that, especially to writing teachers,
1) 1) New media needs to be opened to writing;
2) 2) Digitality ought to encourage us to consider the potentialities of any text we make—consider the range of choice we have
3) 3) It is necessary to employ new media texts—texts made by composers who are aware of the range of materialities of texts and who then highlight the materiality. New media texts allows more interactivity between composers and viewers/readers/consumers—texts no longer function independently (15). It challenges what we instruct as the natural state of writing (1 inch margin, 12 point font etc.) (22).
4) 4) “People in writing classrooms ought to be producing texts using a wide and alertly chosen range of materials—if they are to see their selves as positioned” (20). It would be useful to think about and teach composition of page and screen as a material craft (21-22).
5) 5) What writing teachers can teach is “an alertness to how the various modes available to us can be used in various ratios and combinations to craft and try out positions;” “a generosity toward the positions that others produces,” “and that through out readings we help each other achieve positions that are the most responsibly produced we can” (23).
In short, Wysocki suggests that writing and teaching writing should be mediated, “responsibly produced,” appropriately positioned, and that writers and writing teachers should pay more attention to the use of materiality of writing in the new media to keep up with the potential agency that the digital age provides.
One question (and I’m not sure if it’s a valid question) I have in mind as I finished reading is that, as Wysocki elaborates on the materialities of the new media texts and writing, she is also more or less shaping the study and the teaching of writing as being materialized. What is at stake then with this focus?
I can’t think of writing in isolation of the material conditions. As we discussed in class, the material conditions, such as the number of students, having access to the internet, etc. affect the writing process itself. Students compose differently when they type rather than write. But, are students too dependent on technology that they find it hard to compose in a different setting or materiality? Will technology become so ingrained into our lives that it will be hard to remember the simplicity of writing with a pencil on a piece of paper?
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you mention that last question, Lana. My 4-year old niece has been watching me type papers when I'm at home; last weekend, she announced to me that she wanted to do some writing. I found her some paper and some pens, and she refused them. "No, I want to write," she said again, and pointed at my laptop.
ReplyDeleteWill little Emmy never feel like using pen and paper is "real" writing now? I feel as though I've influenced something revolutionary, entirely by accident.
@Amanda It is truly a surprising example to me, and I would agree with you on the point that it does seem to be some revolution that we are not expecting. Therefore,
ReplyDelete@ Lana It seems that it is entirely reasonable to anticipate a time when younger generations' idea of writing is formed based upon computer and "digitality" in Wysocki's word. However, the revolution is somehow surreal to me whenever I imagined myself never have worked in America this whole time. In China, with calligraphy being the primary origin of writing and an important part of early education, writing is rarely viewed as being or has the potential to be defined by digital technology. Many young students first learn how to write each character as beautiful as they can; and there is a way of teaching that asks students to literarily draw a word while mimicking some calligraphy. So there are numerous cases in which student writers may not have good hand-writing, but can write pretty characters if they draw. Then composition is taught from elementary schools all the way through high schools. Of course, I'm sure such things are common in U.S. as well, and calligraphy can be considered as one kind of materiality of composing. But what it reminds me of is the aesthetic of writing both in a concrete or an abstract sense.
And according to what Wysocki emphasizes in the essay, it can be concluded that we can teach the various methods and technique of writing as well as the visual aspect of it, yet, a common expectation of writing classes is that students can learn to write not only "correctly" but also sophisticatedly and beautifully. And as writing instructors, we are all fully aware of the limited categories of writing we can "exhaust" in the classroom. Therefore, classifying writing classes according to the distinctive features or aspects they focus on (say, traditional class vs. digital writing), and expanding early writing classes into more sequences always appear to be a good management to me.