Bowers, Chapters 3 & 4
I have read several times Chapter 3 "Misconceptions About Language" and Ch. 4 "Digital Colonization" which work closely together.
Ch. 3 discusses the ways that unthinking/uncritical/unquestioning "computer futurist writers" do not understand the "reality constructing nature of language" (p. 26). In their view, language, especially the written word, is merely a "conduit" for the communication of objective knowledge. This view or collection of assumptions about language, according to Bowers, is hazardous, for it leaves out "the dynamic, emergent, and relational processes occurring as people interact with each other and with the environment" (p. 27). Moreover, it perpetuates a Western interpretive framework/ideology/worldview that is capitalist and consumer-driven. The latter two, of course, lead to the abuse and exploitation of the Earth's resources and ecological devastation.
Ch. 4 builds on this argument, furthering the claim that Western technologies are the latest form of imperialism and colonization. The same computer scientists and capitalists believe Western culture, as reproduced and disseminated in the English language with its implicit ways of thinking, is superior to "local" cultures. The latter, for Bowers, are much more ecologically-minded: "But many of these oral cultures have acquired knowledge of local ecosystems that is quite astonishing... Survival for these oral cultures depended upon their ability to adapt their values and practices to what the natural systems could sustain" (p. 39, my emphasis).
Bowers concludes Ch. 4 by showing the "hubris" of a Western attempt at colonization in Peru, viz. the "One Laptop Per Child" program and then describing an alternative educational program that preserves local culture.
For me, these were my two favorite chapters thus far. Bowers (finally!) gives clear examples. He also explains the way that languages have embedded ideologies and that part of our roles as speakers in a language community after primary socialization is to investigate and sometimes interrogate our language for its assumptions about reality.
I also appreciated his examples of "non-technological" approaches to education which embrace tradition: "Learning is face-to-face, and what is shared is how to exercise ecological intelligence--that is, to be aware and interpret the information and others semiotic signs of how to nurture relationships in both local cultural and environmental ecologies" (p. 45). But here I wonder, in his embrace of localism, is he romanticizing local cultures? Wouldn't it be beneficial for every language community to understand its own assumptions and prejudices? That seems like a responsible task for anyone on this planet, to get out of our own ego- and socio-centrism.
Lastly, I read his "three misconceptions" (p. 40) with great interest and an open mind. They are: (1) computers are mere tools, (2) the accuracy of constructivism, and (3) the importance of literacy for the modern world. I happen to believe all three misconceptions, alas... But I think I understand his rationale, except perhaps for #2.
Ch. 3 discusses the ways that unthinking/uncritical/unquestioning "computer futurist writers" do not understand the "reality constructing nature of language" (p. 26). In their view, language, especially the written word, is merely a "conduit" for the communication of objective knowledge. This view or collection of assumptions about language, according to Bowers, is hazardous, for it leaves out "the dynamic, emergent, and relational processes occurring as people interact with each other and with the environment" (p. 27). Moreover, it perpetuates a Western interpretive framework/ideology/worldview that is capitalist and consumer-driven. The latter two, of course, lead to the abuse and exploitation of the Earth's resources and ecological devastation.
Ch. 4 builds on this argument, furthering the claim that Western technologies are the latest form of imperialism and colonization. The same computer scientists and capitalists believe Western culture, as reproduced and disseminated in the English language with its implicit ways of thinking, is superior to "local" cultures. The latter, for Bowers, are much more ecologically-minded: "But many of these oral cultures have acquired knowledge of local ecosystems that is quite astonishing... Survival for these oral cultures depended upon their ability to adapt their values and practices to what the natural systems could sustain" (p. 39, my emphasis).
Bowers concludes Ch. 4 by showing the "hubris" of a Western attempt at colonization in Peru, viz. the "One Laptop Per Child" program and then describing an alternative educational program that preserves local culture.
For me, these were my two favorite chapters thus far. Bowers (finally!) gives clear examples. He also explains the way that languages have embedded ideologies and that part of our roles as speakers in a language community after primary socialization is to investigate and sometimes interrogate our language for its assumptions about reality.
I also appreciated his examples of "non-technological" approaches to education which embrace tradition: "Learning is face-to-face, and what is shared is how to exercise ecological intelligence--that is, to be aware and interpret the information and others semiotic signs of how to nurture relationships in both local cultural and environmental ecologies" (p. 45). But here I wonder, in his embrace of localism, is he romanticizing local cultures? Wouldn't it be beneficial for every language community to understand its own assumptions and prejudices? That seems like a responsible task for anyone on this planet, to get out of our own ego- and socio-centrism.
Lastly, I read his "three misconceptions" (p. 40) with great interest and an open mind. They are: (1) computers are mere tools, (2) the accuracy of constructivism, and (3) the importance of literacy for the modern world. I happen to believe all three misconceptions, alas... But I think I understand his rationale, except perhaps for #2.
posted by AJV at 1:19 PM
3 Comments:
Let me start with this quote and move along in a meandering sort of eay: "Meanings can be negotiated in oral cultures, which is not the case when the reader is learning something for the first time or encountering what is constantly repeated in a written text."
They can be in a written culture, but the written culture needs to realize where the authority of the text comes from. Then they can know how to challenge it. Knowing the reason why the text was taken as important (historical context, evidence at the time, etc.) will give us an idea of how it can be reinterpreted in a new context.
So, I like the part about adapting to what the environment can sustain. I think that is part of any good interpretive and adaptive system. We can interpret the world in many different ways, and we use language to do that. This gives us a huge freedom to create and act as we wish. But we can't ignore things in the world. We can interpret the hardness of the rock as bad or good or neutral depending on what we want to do with it, or what others want to do tous with it. We can interpret death as something good-- passage to the next world, getting out of this world, etc.-- or as bad-- the end of everything for that person, the leaving of others who are depending on them in risk or at a disadvantage, etc.-- or as neutral.
What we can't do, at least not for long, is to ignore death. We can't ignore the hardness of the rock either. We need to deal with them. The more inflexible we are in how we interpret them, the more likely it is that we will ignore the possibilities that the current interpretations marginalize.
When he talks about written cultures not having the flexibility of oral ones, I think he is wrong. In the Christian religion you are supposed to look forward to death because of heaven, but you are also not supposed to seek death: suicide and folly that lead to death are not good. So you have to navigate a middle way between the two values. That is where a written culture can be flexible and negotiate maybe not meaning but what the right actions are based on complex systems or values that have contradictions in them.
I think is he right about the tendency of written cultures to promote abstractions that then keep us from experience in the actual immediate world. But, I think that doesn't have to be the case. We can abstractly disect the world and cut things out of the emergent and ecological world in order to come to a certain more detailed understanding of them alone. That can be helpful because always looking at the interconnected whole can be overwhelming and limiting in its own ways. The key is to balance between the individual things and the whole.
The three misconceptions are good. I do wish he would elaborate more, but a lot of it is remenicent of Postman's Amusing Ourselves To Death and Technopoly. So I do feel I understand them.
Again, I like what he is saying, and I think it is a timely message. I just feel he is being a bit too one sided at times in how he attacks and explains.
His critique of writing reminds me of Plato's Phaedrus, where Socrates (I think) bemoans the rise of written discourse which is inferior, less dialogical, and more open to misinterpretation than philosophical discussion (i.e. the Socratic elenchus).
I agree with you that meanings can be negotiated, indeed must be negotiated, in written texts. Additionally, we can imagine highly oppressive oral cultures where no one is allowed to question the meaning of the power elite's mandates or where the recipients of a speech-act unquestioningly agree with the content of the spoken message.
At first blush, there is a qualitative difference between the spoken and written words. Yet it is easy to see how both discourses can be closed or opened to interpretation by the speaker/writer and/or the recipient of the communication.
One-sidedness in this polemic, yet again, prevails. That being said, I agree with much of what he claims!
AJ, you are right. It is Phaedrus where Plato talks about Thamus and the negative judgement of writing. Postman uses the story in Technopoly.
Post a Comment
<< Home