changing writers and readers

To begin, Gitelman references an issue that we discussed during the last class (i.e. cell phone as phone or as a writing tool); Gitelman “locat[es] machines and other textual devices in the instances of invention, in narratives that show each machine, device, or process to have been authored and appropriated out of many different possibilities relevant to the making of meaning” (p. 4). She argues that the invention of new ways of writing or kinds of writing “presupposes a model of what writing and reading are and can be” (p. 4). She maintains that inscription practices and technologies are “not ‘our’ theory of language. Instead, they are modest, local, and often competitive embodiments of the way people wrote, read, and interacted over the perceived characteristics of writing and reading” (p. 4). In addition, Gitelman argues that “changes to writing and reading matter in large measure because they equal changes to writers and readers. New inscriptions signal new subjectivities” (p. 11).

Enough quotations…I just wanted to set down the context before I extrapolate/ramble/technologize my words.

A good illustration of the phenomena occurring throughout the above quotes is that of Edison’s phonograph, the purpose he saw it fulfilling, and the purpose it eventually fulfilled. Business recording device vs. music/audio playback machine. This example, to me at least, really points to Gitelman’s argument (above quote) that these inventions help create new kinds of writing and meaning-making, but also presuppose our theories of writing and reading.

The phonograph was originally intended as a business recording device. Edison thought it would, essentially, be an artificial (cyborg?) phonographer. Yet, it opened up an entire new understanding of what we see as writing (and reading). I think we could look at this phenomenon with many other technologies in mind as well: the cell phone, the computer, clay tablets to paper, etc. In any case, these technologies opened up new locations for writing to take place, and while these new practices are not ‘our theory’ of language (see above quote), they do allow us to see how we work within/outside language (and within/outside our theory of language).

Before the personal computer was en vogue, I never imagined a liquid crystal screen would perform as a writing surface. Gradually, my theories of language and writing changed with my practices and the technologies I used. I am certain that my social interactions and beliefs have also been affected by these practices and technologies, and thus, as Gitelman argues, I am exposed to new subjectivities (see quote above). It is quite telling about a social group/society when a technology is used for a purpose of which it was not originally intended. This really gets at the idea that the meaning does not reside in the technology itself, but is created by the social groups and their interactions with the technology. Not everyone needs a phonograph to record business notes, but many people might want to hear a recording over and over again. The technology becomes meaningful, and its meaning changes when people interact with it and around it.

With Gitelman’s above quotes and Bijker’s work in mind, how we can address writing today? What are the affordances and constraints of the technologies and practices with/in which we engage? How are we, today, changing our theory of writing and language, and how does this affect our use of technologies available? (I’m trying to get some questions down so that I/we can think about these things some more.)