Winner versus Blackboard

The Blackboard management system is a somewhat new educational technology.  It allows students to track their progress without having to wait for a mid-semester progress report or set up a meeting with a professor.  On the surface, this new invention created for educational purposes seems like a positive addition in facilitating efficiency in the classroom.  Yet, after reading Winner’s essay “Do Artifacts have Politics?” it is clear there may be some underlying political disadvantages to this new direction in education.

For a student such as myself, who owns a computer and has unlimited access to the internet, Blackboard management system gives me the power to check assignment dates, test dates, look up required readings, check my academic progress, and read answers to pertinent questions that I might have about my major, college of study or minor. 

It benefits teachers by allowing them to input information, such as a syllabus, online so they do not have to waste hundreds of sheets of paper.  They are not bombarded with student questions like “how am I doing in class” or “what is my current grade?”

However, Blackboard management system does assume that students using this system will have 24 hour access to a computer, email and the Blackboard system.  Notifications are often given through email or on the Blackboard main page.  Therefore, a student who does not have the financial means to purchase a home computer or laptop is already at a disadvantage compared to those who can. 

The argument can be made that those students can easily log into a library computer and check Blackboard; however, it doesn’t take into account that those students (because of their financial encumbrance) might not have the time.  Once school is complete they might have to go straight to work for the next five to eight hours in order to pay for tuition, books, housing costs etc.  In theory, Blackboard might put an added strain to those financially challenged students. In addition, because syllabi are often only put up on Blackboard, and often not given out to students in the classroom, the creators assumed all students would have access to a printer or have enough money to print out the sometimes three to five page documents. 

Like one of the key points Winner alludes to, technology creates a path in which society will walk.  He writes whether societies are conscious of this or not, the way in which technology is created will determine how and who will take part in this process.  Winner gives an example of a building and road architect that created many low rising freeway overpasses in certain parts of Long Island and New York.  According to Winner, the city planner’s purpose was to subtly make it impossible for public busses (that most low income black families used) unable to move across certain boundaries.  Essentially keeping the lower class in a structured area and not allowing them to freely move about.  It turns out the city planner Winner writes about had many racist and bigoted views; however, nonetheless the technology created in this situation and many others had underlying political motivations.

Although Blackboard management system seems like a positive step towards a more efficient educational system, one must ask himself if there are underlying political motives, conscious or not, and whether there are negative consequences, known or not.  The basic question that should be examined is how does this facilitate or take away from the educational experience? Who and what type of people are benefiting from this new technology and how will this influence all communication and social structure for the educational system? 

With rising tuition costs and a growing lower class, it seems to further isolate those who cannot afford relatively expensive institutions and technology.  Furthermore it pushes teachers and students further apart, using the internet (Blackboard) as the main means of communication.

Time will tell the consequences of such technology.  Until then it is anybody’s guess how this will affect our communication process.

The Judgement of Thamus-Postman

The Judgement of Thamus is a text used to ask and explain the questions that arise as technology begins to imbed itself in cultures across the world.  Postman uses King Thamus’ opinion about the invention of writing as a stark contrast between those he calls “technophiles” and “technophopes.” 

It is in the first paragraph where the reader learns of King Thamus’ apprehensions to the written word.  Thamus’ concerns are wrapped around the belief that writing will replace memory with recollection and create a sense of false wisdom among Theuth’s pupils.  Thamus claims, “Those who acquire it will cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful. They will rely on writing to bring things to their remembrance by external signs instead of by their own internal resources. What you have discovered is a receipt for recollection, not for memory,” (Postman, 31).

It is in these claims Postman sees an unsightly error both in logic and wisdom, for Thamus assumes writing will have this effect and that it will be both troubling and an encumbrance to society.  “Thamus’ error is in believing that writing will be a burden to society and nothing but a burden.  For all his wisdom, he fails to imagine what writing’s benefits might be, which, as we know, have been considerable,” (Postman, 31).

However, Thamus has taught us that “once a technology is admitted, it plays out its hand; it does what it is designed to do,” (Postman, 33).  In other words, when a new technology is introduced, it is well advised to seek out its potential benefits and consequences on society.  Asking questions like, how will society change?  What will be its significance to the majority of the population?  Allows for a more even handed and logical approach. “When we admit a new technology to the culture, we must do so with our eyes wide open,” (Postman, 33).

Further down the text Postman claims in every technological advance lies what he calls “winners” and “losers.”  He finds it strange, that, while the winners are expected to cheer themselves along, the losers do too.  For example, those who have found lucrative careers in media find television a blessing because of their increased wealth, social status and membership in what Harold Innis calls, a knowledge monopoly.  It is only natural these people are pleased with the invention.  Yet, teachers, whom Postman believes are most threatened by this new invention, tend to applaud television as if it doesn’t change the way people think about the words knowledge and information. Postman claims, “Television may bring a gradual end to the careers of schoolteachers, since school was an invention of the printing press and must stand or fall on the issue of how much importance the printed word has,” (Postman, 34).

Although, Postman is right that with the advent of new technology the meaning of some of our most deeply rooted words might change in meaning, he neglects to think about the term schoolteacher itself.  I would argue the term schoolteacher really has nothing to do with the printing press, television or now the internet.  One could say the act of teaching someone how to milk a cow, cook, or sew is a form of schooling.  When Aristotle spoke, not wrote, to his students, was this not teaching? Was this not a form of school?  Therefore to come to the conclusion that because technology may alter the meaning of some words, occupations that rely on those definitions will become obsolete seems to be a very bold statement. One cannot jump to the conclusion that once something changes its complement disappears.  It usually just adapts.

In other words, I would argue technology doesn’t create winners and losers, but readjusts our culture and occupations.  There is an argument that technology doesn’t change the culture, for the culture created these inventions; it is the culture that changes technology.  Therefore, saying a car is counterproductive to a blacksmith or television is a threat to schoolteachers, is like saying natural fertilizer is bad for grass.  Or maturity is a detriment to the young child.

Although I agree with much of what Postman writes and do not consider myself a “technophile” I think it is important to realize the advent of new technology cannot be seen as a detriment to society.  After all it is society who invented these things and if it were not for some type of need, they would not have been invented. 

It should be recognized that technology is a manufactured form of evolution. Not manufactured in the sense that it is not natural, but created from an ever evolving human race.  We are not wired, so to speak, to not wonder, to not create, to not try and better ourselves.  Technology is a product of these inherent human needs.  Whether or not these new technologies are better for society as a whole can be argued.  But the fact that technology can be considered as a “destroyer” of old “worthy” ideas and definitions can also be argued.

As Postman puts it “New technologies alter the structure of our interests: the things we think about.  They alter the character of our symbols: the things we think with.  And they alter the nature of community: the arena in which thoughts develop,” (Postman, 39).  Just like a child grows into an adult, technology grows as societies mature and become more developed.  The concept of reality changes as a person grows older.  I believe technology is just part of that process.

Sundiata versus Ong

In the text,” Psychodynamics of Orality,” Walter J. Ong describes different techniques oral cultures have developed to record thoughts.  He has broken up these methods into 10 distinct categories that, according to Ong, can be readily identified in what he calls primary oral cultures.  The text we were asked to analyze demonstrates several of these techniques. 

After reading Sundiata, it is clear the oral compositor used mnemonic devices and a rhythmic tone to aid in future recollection.  Ong proposes that the only way someone can remember a complex formula (or in this case a somewhat complicated story) is to simply think memorable thoughts.  In order to solve the problem of effectively “retaining and retrieving articulated thought,” as Ong calls it, one must think in mnemonic patterns and create a deep, rhythmic style throughout.  This is often accomplished using repetition, antitheses, alliterations and assonances; all of which are present in the Sundiata text.  The redundant and continued descriptions of events in the first two verses, and throughout the entire text in different areas, are a few examples of the argument above.

It is also clear that the Sundiata text uses Ong’s aggregative technique.   Ong proposes that oral cultures tend to use epithets while high literacy cultures usually find their use as wordy and tiresome.  For example, throughout the Sundiata text the author describes a staff as a “seven-fold forged staff” and blacksmiths as “blacksmith patriarchs.”  According to Ong, this heavy use of epithets help oral cultures develop a kind of word driven formula that helps people remember the story.  Just like two plus two is four, oral cultures have developed ways to remember multiple words put together. 

In addition to many of the other techniques the Sundiata text uses, the redundant usage of certain phrases and words are one of the more prevalent methods.  In almost every verse, two or three lines will be repeated from the one before it creating only a few more elements for the speaker to remember.

After reading the Sundiata text, it is clear many of Ong’s techniques were used in the creation of this story.  Oral cultures needed to create some sort of method or methods in order to remember complex stories and poems.  It is through some of these techniques described above and continuous practicing that oral cultures were able to maintain an oral record of their history. 

Although poems and stories like Sundiata were created through fanciful reenactments of the truth, I believe they are usually based on some version of reality.  Stories that tend to be more extreme in nature are usually more memorable and therefore can help people in a highly oral culture remember their history.

The Coming of Literate Communication to Western Culture

In The Coming of Literate Communication to Western Culture by Eric A. Havelock, he explains the complex history of how our written language came to be. Starting in Ancient Greece, the Greeks played an integral role in the creation of our modern written language. He claims as the Greeks began to create what is now known as Greek classical culture, the idea of literacy started to emerge. A reoccurring idea throughout the text is that literacy started with non-literacy. Meaning culture and language are not dependent on literacy, rather literacy is dependent upon a type of cultural condition that takes time for its use to be recognized and revered.

Although I felt Havelock did a good job explaining some of the historical roots of literacy, I found myself wondering how the Greeks invented the five vowels that are key to our modern written language.

The most interesting part of the text came towards the end when Havelock explained some of the problems the Greeks had getting people to learn and study this new written form of communication.  As Havelock puts it two things stood between the Greeks and becoming literate.  The non-existence of reading material and the lack of methods for teaching younger generations to read and write proved to be some of the greatest challenges this new form of communication had.

I also found Havelock’s connection between the speaker and his words versus the writer and his words very interesting. As I understand it, Havelock seems to notice a certain detachment from the author and his or her words. Writers almost never write the way they talk. Therefore it can be said, writing may not be the purest form of communication because it does not accurately describe the authors personality. On the other hand, one could say writing helps authors think critically and methodically about the words they use versus saying whatever first comes to mind.

Overall I though this reading was interesting and informative.