In his recent work “On the New Literacy,” Clive Thompson suggests that technology has improved and helped the younger generation more than dragged it down. He is arguing that without things like texting, e-mail or even face book kids would never write a sentence nonetheless a paragraph outside of school. Thompson claims that although we use shorthand writing when testing or other communicative ways, in the end we know who our audience is and change the way we get our point across according to that. He starts off his essay with a short take from English professor John Sutherland, University College of London. Sutherland states “Face book encourages narcissistic blabbering, video and PowerPoint have replaced carefully crafted essays, and texting has dehydrated language into ‘bleak, bald, sad shorthand.” What Sutherland says is pretty much what Thompson is arguing against. In his next paragraph he brings in Andrea Lunford- professor of writing and rhetoric at Stanford University. Lunford’s argument is on that he can agree with. She says “I think we’re in the midst of a literacy revolution the likes of which we haven’t seen since Greek civilization.” Her main idea is that technology isn’t “killing our ability to write, its reviving it- and pushing our literacy in bold new directions.” One implication of Thompson’s treatment of technology is that students today almost always write for an audience and that gives them a different sense of what continues good writing. Although Thompson does not say so directly, he apparently assumes that technology is only helping, and old fashioned teaching will always benefit and be something solid, the more modern gadgets are still good to have.
My own view is just as the one Lunsford and Thompson state, I agree with them fully. Though I concede that everything on the internet or each individual puts out may not always be reliable, I still maintain that technology has only improved our views and ways of writing. For example, when I text I usually text close friends and use abbreviations. When I e-mail it’s both to a professor or family member and in those I tend to type out short complete sentences. Where as in class I am more accustomed to going into specific detail to make sure I can write all the information I know to get my full point across to the teacher. Although some may object that by us short handing our vocabulary is only ‘dumming’ us down, I reply that with what Lunsford and Thompson stated above “It’s becoming clear that online media are pushing literacy into cool directions.” The issue is important because as times change and new generations come the definition of literacy will continue to be changed and we’re just going to have to keep up with it or work around it.
I find it true also that there are in fact more ways to write and that the new ways people write are in fact towards a live audience. We are used to the standard protocol that the teacher wants us to write and thus showing that people would rather write their own way. Good Job!
ReplyDeleteI have to say that i agree with everything you say. the only thing i was wondering, in the article when they say in the old days people didnt write outside of school at all, and now people are on facebook and twitter, they write blogs, and there is just so much writing outside of the classroom, well in the old days didn they write letters? or took notes? i think thats a strong conversation you could have with the author in an essay if you were to write one and disagree with the author.
ReplyDelete