From Studyplace

Discussion

• I posted an article from the July 2008 issue of Scientific American (what an interesting name) on the history of plows. You can find it in ClassWeb, under Collaborative Files. Aaron Hung 13:44, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
• I think it'd be interesting to compare Leo Marx's book with Japanese anime's take on technology. From the little I know of anime, technology is often portrayed in dystopian terms even though technology itself in present-day Japan appears to be more utopian. Anime about futuristic, dystopic societies would be cliche if it wasn't also so fascinating. Actually, has anyone the anime Metropolis? It alludes to Fritz Lang's silent movie, Metropolis in some way, but I haven't seen Lang's version. Aaron Hung 13:38, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
• Gosh, I wish I've read more American novels now. My interest has always been in the British novel (Austen, Hardy, Lawrence, Forster, Woolf). Aaron Hung 13:49, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Reaction papers

Assignment

Each reaction paper should be between 500 and 1000 words long. Each should minimally focus on one of the issues raised in one of the required readings in term of one of the other required or recommended readings. Maximally, and particularly as the course progresses, the reaction papers should cross reference more of the required or recommended readings, including those for earlier sections.

Guidelines

1. Write up your paper on a word processor like Microsoft Word
2. Find your name on the list and click on "Edit". It should open up a box that shows a space for you to enter text
3. Copy and paste your paper from the word processor onto the StudyPlace window
4. Click on "Show Preview" if you want to see what it looks like
5. Click on "Save Page" to finalize your changes
6. Email a copy of your paper to Professor Varenne and Aaron Hung. If you are stuck at any point, feel free to email Aaron.
7. Feel free to comment on other students' assignments. You can put your comments at the bottom of the other student's paper. Be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~. This will automatically sign and date your comment.

You can also watch a video tutorial of this on Youtube.

The assignment should be on StudyPlace by the time class starts on the day that it is due.

Gillian Andrews

Marion Duignan

Today more than in previous times, I find it disconcerting to think back on the previous week's readings - my mind is crammed with the ideas and information from "The Machine in the Garden"!

However, regarding a question for the final - something to do with the idea of history would please and interest me.

All of last week's readings were the most enjoyable as a group to date for me in this class. In particular I was taken with Ong's chapter on how 'Writing restructures consciousness'. That is really the most amazing and significant impact/result of writing on mankind - how it enables us to "heighten consciousness" to use Ong's own words. Looking back over this particular section made me think of an example from Gundaker's reading. Gundaker mentions that the concepts of literacy and freedom (together) have been noted in African American history and he relates the story of one C.L. Hall, an escaped slave who found his freedom in Canada. Hall related that "[The] more I read...the more I fought against slavery. Finally, I thought I would make an attempt to get free, and have liberty or death." Gundaker then goes on to say how liberating is was for black citizens to write their own autobiographies - "a public way of declaring oneself free, of redefining freedom, and then assigning it to oneself." For sure there is a connection between literacy and freedom - but I feel it transcends race, religion, and gender. Think of all the very real and important documents, songs and speeches over the course of history that have influenced, inspired and 'restructured' the consciousness of those who heard or read them. Look how we as U.S. citizens revere the Constitution. I can't read Martin Luther King Jr.'s I Have A Dream speech without getting a lump in my throat and feeling motivated to do something, anything to bring about effective change - this speech is so moving that its least impact on me is that of hope (and that in and of itself is huge)! Or look at the impact the German Martin Luther's 95 Theses had after being nailed to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg in 1517.

Another area that piqued my interest and that I wouldn't mind looking into more is that of the "label" - as humans we not only like giving things names but with the dawn of writing (and modern label making machines) we can tag everything with a label! What quirky stuff of/in humanity fuels this propensity? How is it linked to and to what extent does the idea of private ownership play in relation to not only material things but words themselves.

The cherry on last week's reading pie was Conklin's article on the Mindoro. Of course it was just fabulous to think of a people whose prime motivation to literacy is the writing down and learning of love songs. And even though they have no definitive written history of even their love songs due to the fact their writing material deteriorates so rapidly in the jungles where they live - I can't help but assume that as a result of their love literacy each generation in their own way is inspired anew to not only repeat but to restructure (and thus be original) a given poem for themselves to pass on.

I'd like to end this reaction paper with a thought on Ong's psychodynamics of orality. He states very optimistically that "knowledge is ultimately not a fractioning but a unifying phenomenon, a striving for harmony. Without harmony, an interior condition, the psyche is in bad health." A lot is said in all these readings over the weeks about the interiorization of the technologies over time - whether they be the written word or the various machines (machinations)- it's really all about finding a balance in ourselves as well as in society as a whole in regard to them all. For as Leo Marx interprets Timothy Walker in The Machine In The Garden "to have freedom of mind...it is first necessary to have freedom from want." We have to take a chance in our discoveries that they will improve our lives and (again from Leo Marx) "...the machine is a token of the possibilities of democracy...a more harmonious and just way of life -- including the life of the mind."

Aaron Chia-Yuan Hung

Jessica Lowden

One of the most remarkable things about technological advances is that they come to be taken for granted in a relatively short span of time. Today, few people in the United States would consider indoor plumbing, steam engines or in-home telephones astounding technological advances. Yet, little less than a century ago these inventions were considered modern marvels. In this same vein, I had never thought of the alphabet or writing as technological innovations. However, as Walter J. Ong highlights in his book Orality and Literacy (1982), these basic components of modern society have not always been in existence. Their introduction into society had profound effects on the reproduction of knowledge and on many aspects of society.

For me, one of the most interesting concepts in Ong’s book was how writing and the introduction of schooling redefined the concept of intelligence. Ong uses the poignant example of presenting drawings of four objects to illiterate subjects and subjects who had studied at school. The illiterate subject used his situational intelligence to analyze the objects and delivers a perfectly logical response, but not the one considered correct. On the other hand, the subject who had studied at school “correctly” identified the object which was meant to be unlike the others (p. 51, 1982). The linear thinking mandated by writing and propagated through the use of textbooks has reconfigured how students are expected to think and to analyze certain problems. Ong points out that, “Oral folks assess intelligence not as extrapolated from contrived textbook quizzes but as situated in operational contexts” (p. 55, 1982).

When one, such as myself, has been exposed to schooling and the written word her entire life, it is difficult to imagine an orally based culture or even one where attendance at school is not required. But, it also illustrates the intelligence that exists outside of the written word and how those of us raised in a school-based society, “are not aware that they are using special rules” (p. 56, 1982). For anyone studying international education, this premise is particularly relevant since there are still many societies in the world that have not been exposed to the formal education system. While most of these societies are fully aware of the written word, they may not be aware of the special rules embraced by the formal school system. Many of these cultures are still orally based and thus have little experience with the structures of text books, let alone standardized tests and tests of logic which follow the rules established by formal education systems and their administrators.

With the vast array of available technologies, educational theories and resources available to educators, it is not necessary to force oral societies into schools which are completely unfamiliar to them. Educational systems can be tailored to meet the needs of predominantly oral societies. These societies should not be labeled as primitive or less intelligent simply because they do not know the arbitrary rules created by literate societies. As Gundaker demonstrates in her article “Hidden Education Among African Americans During Slavery” (2007), people will go to exceptional lengths to acquire education for themselves. Even societies which have been deemed as inferior or labeled by society as backwards till seek out education in their own way. Simply because these societies do not conform to the established definitions of intelligence is by no means indicative of their ability to learn. What is made clear by Ong’s book is that we need to carefully examine our notions of intelligence since these notions have become entrenched by accepting limited and rigid definitions of literacy. We need to take into careful consideration the effective learning modalities practiced by oral societies and use these innovations when developing schools and programs in among traditionally oral societies.

JAL2169 08:51, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Bianca Mona

When we read a cluster of articles and then are expected to write a reflection I always try to find the connections. I find myself thinking, “why did Professor Varenne choose these to read this week.” Well, once again after reading Ong, Conklin, and Gundaker I have come up with the following themes that somewhat run throughout all three readings: methods and purpose of literacy/orality; the value of education; and orality versus literacy.

Let me begin by first admitting my ignorance of terms Ong presented. First, I learned the definition of orality and how it defines culture. The idea of orality which, Ong defines orality as “thought and its verbal expression in societies where the technologies of literacy (especially writing and print) are unfamiliar to most of the population” was foreign. I was aware of cultures that existed like this but for the first time I was able to define this type of society, a true measurement of the learning of new concepts and terminology. Ong further distinguishes between two forms of orality: ‘primary orality’ and ‘residual orality.’ ‘Primary orality’ refers to thought and its verbal expression within cultures “totally untouched by any knowledge of writing or print”. ‘Residual orality’ refers to thought and its verbal expression in cultures that have been exposed to writing and print, but have not fully internalized the use of these technologies in their daily lives. Reading Ong and establishing the foundation of various “literate” cultures was necessary in further understanding the importance of the Hanunóo.

I would define the Hanunóo as a primary oral culture. Because of their location, peaceful, introvert temperament, the Hanunóo have not been affected or influenced by external factors. They have been able to maintain their method of becoming literate through a verbal transmission of literacy through song. Furthermore I found there tools of writing to be inventive. Their method to learn to write is similar to the way I learned. The idea of copying was actually was similar to way in which I remember learning to write. As a kindergarten, I remember being given ditto after ditto of letters for me to trace in order to learn how to write. Once again, in third grade, I learned to write in cursive by tracing the letters. This method tried to ensure uniformality and lacked individual style which I later developed in high school. Surprisingly, the Hanunóo, who some may deem as primitive, probably have a more practical way of learning to write. By copying from bamboo rather than tracing the “student” has the opportunity to learn by the visual interpretation of the structure of the letters, thus allowing room for differences in “penmanship.” I was also touched by the purpose of becoming literate: courtship. At first it may seem silly or overly romantic, but upon further reflection I say it’s practical. What other reason would this primary oral society need to learn to write? They function well among themselves with defined roles and responsibilities; they verbally communicate well with one another; and they survive through deeply rooted cultural traditions.

The Hanunóo become literate when necessary whereas slaves became literate to survive. Slaves knew there was power in knowledge and thus sought be learn through any means necessary. Gundaker mentions various means of learning but I was impressed by the schooling take took place underground. How ingenious was that!?!?! Their desire to know more and develop new skills was because of the interaction with others, opposite of the Hanunóo. Being captives rendered them powerless and at the mercy of others. I argue that slaves, within their own cultures back in Africa were probably fully literate but because of their situation they were forced to become another kind of literate in new lands.

Devayani Tirthali

{I am still writing} I took the following quote from our class notes as my inspiration for this thought piece.

"Many of the features we have taken for granted in thought and expression in literature, philosophy and science, and even in oral discourse among literates, are not directly native to human existence as such but have come into being because of the resources which the technology of writing makes available to human consciousness. We have had to revise our understanding of human identity." (Ong, p. 1)

Even though writing/literacy is not ‘natural’ for human beings, now that it is considered to be a part of life of a normal human being, illiteracy becomes a disability. It suddenly becomes an important part of defining intelligence and ability of a person. When I think back to situations when I support older faculty members to use ‘technology’, I wonder if the technology of word processing has similarly made them disabled.

Some of my colleagues cannot think while writing with a computer. They have to have a pen and paper at least till they create a rough draft or outline. Basically they need the paper to think through and then they do the mechanical thing of writing down with a computer. While, I cannot think or write effectively if I am not writing with a computer/word processor. The ability provided by a word processor to jot down rough thoughts that can be easily rearranged is an important given to the way I think now-a-days. My thought process is less linear (haphazard??), drawing from/thinking about various points at once making it messier visually on paper. Since computers are part of our everyday life my inability to think with a paper and pen doesn’t matter anymore but their inability to write directly in Word might become a handicap.

The understanding of computer ‘space’ as modular and hierarchically arranged is borrowed from the paper world where the hierarchy was paper, file, cabinet drawer and pages and books. Now that we look at chunks of information as more or less without hierarchy but tagged for retrieval (for example, del.icio.us, storage of emails in gmail) do we think differently? Has our thinking changed from hierarchical, strictly discipline based thinking to more creative lateral thinking?

The issue of 'Access' (both availablility of things to read as we well as resources to write/publish) use of alphabet,writing on stone - writing with hand on paper - printing - writing with computer - publishing on the web