First, provide at least TWO questions about/around/surrounding Lessig you want to discuss in class (realizing your peers may respond as well). Second, and this is purposefully very open, what do you think so far of Lessig's points?
Question 1: How will the merger between RO and RW change the way that we approach the teaching of writing? Will we work to add to Selfe’s idea of composing in different modalities with a sprinkle of what Johnson-Eilola speaks about in regards to synthesis/articulation?
Question 2: In his discussion about RW as important, Lessing says, “It is the history of literacy --- the capacity to understand, which comes from not just passively listening, but also from writing” (106). To me, Lessing gives much credit to writing, but what about listening? What about hearing? As teachers and future teachers, what do we really count as literacy?
Lessing’s discussions about RO (read only) and RW (read/write) cultures are provocative because he brings up so many relatively current online spaces that participate in what he calls “sharing economies.” From Flickr to Wikipedia, Lessing outlines how people use these spaces, “people participate in the economy are terms not centered on cash. In each, the work that others might share is never shared for the money” (172). His reasoning is that people simply want to; these people have a desire to be intellectually simulated and sharing helps to curve the craving (173). I am not sure that I buy this idea of intellectual stimulation. It sounds more like control to me (and I don’t mean it in a bad way). Really, I think that those who are able to change or add to a database in a significant way are trying to control how they are viewed. They are trying to leave a digital mark or footprint for others to see. I guess that if we think about the function of academia, particularly at a research university, we work to gain some type of footing, too. We are told to present at conferences, to try to publish, and to make a name for ourselves. I’m sure that we are here for intellectual stimulation, too, but that is not all. In other words, I think that Lessing is being a bit modest with this idea of sharing communities. Even if there is no immediate monetary gain, people participate for more than just intellectual stimulation (or we could say that they participate for different types of stimulation).
The chapter that begins with hybrid economies (ones that marry to commercial and the sharing) is interesting as well. One economy cannot exist without the other, Lessing notes, but the differences between the two have to remain the same. One example that he provides is YouTube. I found it thought-provoking that he quotes Tim O’Reilly saying that YouTube’s fame “wasn’t because [people] thought it was cool. It was because YouTube figured out better how to make it viral. Viral is about making it serve the people’s own interest, so that they’re participating without thinking that they’re participating” (qtd. in Lessing 224). So, this idea of thinking, but not, is intriguing to me. Does this mean that people who participate are passive users? Has the notion of thinking been remixed? Is a certain type of thinking only relegated to those who can create/maintain the interface (I am totally thinking of Selfe and Selfe…and Gramsci here). What, then, does critical thinking mean?
the question, what do we count as literacy, is an interesting one. i don't know what we count as literacy. i know that we (and by we, i mean english teachers) value written literacy above all others, but we also include an oral literacy in some ways. we require presentations. we want our students to engage in conversation in the classroom. we mark them absent or take participation points away if they're not...participating. but why is reading as literacy always seen as passive? i don't think that's fair. it takes a fair amount of action to engage in another's thoughts, even by just the act of reading. (or listening, or seeing). passivity would mean, to me, just ignoring the reading altogether. or ignoring presentations.
ReplyDeletewe don't want to count that as literacy, though, because we seem to want our writing on a pedestal. if it's not - we're afraid of what happens to our job, our definitions, our worth, etc.
I'm particularly interested in your first question, how will RO and RW's confrontation impact our classrooms? Lessig celebrates the idea of an unregulated, participatory, free culture filled with young people playing around with bits of ideas. He argues (quite convincingly) that this realm should be less regulated than it currently is. Is it going against the grain to assign some structure to this third order of order? If it's not, then it would seem old-fashioned to only include strictly written essays when trying to get students to try on a remix implementing different modalities.
ReplyDeleteAs for your second question, I once was a member of an interpersonal communication class doing a unit of "Active Listening." And I despised it - at least at first. I remember thinking to myself, "Why am I being taught how to listen? I know how to listen!" However, we also read research about how much information we can retain by casually listening - and it's not a lot. In order to remember what you hear, you have to be plugged in and engaged. In my mind, knowing how to listen is a form of literacy. And not just in knowing "listening strategies," but also in really concrete ways, like issues of vocabularies and regional accents.
This is way long, however, I'd like to respond to your last question, "What, then, does critical thinking mean?" I haven't a clue.
Jessica,
ReplyDeleteYour point about critical thinking and YouTube is so interesting. It seems to me that you, more or less, kicked down a supporting beam in the house Lessig was constructing. His initial argument for amateurism was that it transformed consumers into producers. This makes me think of Murray, Emig, Ede, Lundsford and Berthoff, all of whom we read this week in 501. Each added a piece to the argument for process. Berthoff: “unless the mind of the learner is engaged, no meaning will be made, no knowledge can be won” (Cross-Talk, 330). So, if O’Rielly is right, then the bulk of contributors to YouTube are not learning anything. This in itself does not directly challenge Lessig since not everything on YouTube is remixed, but it does poke a few keys holes in the raft. What percent of the hundreds of hours spent constructing anime music videos are engaging to the creator (77)? This makes me think again of the claim that Baby Einstein videos are “digital board books”. I put one of these movies in this weekend for my daughter. My express purpose was to get her to sit down, stop moving (and being a danger unto herself) while I made dinner. The look on her face belied any form of “engagement”. This is a weak and unrelated example since she was clearly taking the form of consumer, but still vaguely relevant, since I would argue that most 18 month olds looking at books are usually producers, primarily of language. I haven’t seen that the “digital” board book offers the same opportunity for production. So, coming back to Lessig and his willingness to quote O’Rielly, we find ourselves where we always find ourselves: agreeing with Selfe and Wysocki that “new media” must be able to justify its relevance.