Outweighing the Bad by the Good

As technology advances and people spend more time surfing the web on computers and phones, people start raising questions about how this new way to spend time affects our reading and writing skills. A number of people voice their concerns about the internet that range from becoming stupid people to ruining the country with bad decisions based on faulty information. On the other end of the spectrum, others claim that the internet strengthens human connection and provides young people the opportunity to write. Although each has convincing arguments, not all of them are all true or false; rather the real truth of how the internet influence us becomes apparent by taking bits and pieces of each perspective.

            Before analyzing what the internet does to our literacy, we have to define it. Based on varying arguments, literacy has different definitions. Looking back historically, Sylvia Scribner notes how literacy is a social achievement defined by the place and time. Scribner points to three types of literacy seen historically: “Literacy as adaption,” “literacy as power,” and “literacy as a state of grace” (Scribner). Each perspective shows how different cultures viewed literacy in purely functional terms, literacy as creating social advancement, and literacy as knowing the religious texts. From Scribner’s three diagnoses we can most relate to literacy as power and adaption in trying to advance our entire society and function correctly.

            Based on these definitions of literacy, we can see how Chris Hedges battles with the consequences of our society only having functional literacy skills – literacy as adaption. In his article “America the Illiterate,” Hedges gives shocking statistics that attempt to prove his point that some Americans are literate but “the other America, which constitutes the majority, exists in a non-reality-based belief system” (Hedges 1). By this, Hedges means that many Americans operate at such a low literacy rate that they rely on faulty advertisements and slogans which do not display an unbiased truth. Due to their inability to read, Hedges claims these American make faulty decisions that can affect the individual like eating unhealthy food from fast food restaurants to affecting the entire world by voting for government representatives on slogans. Attempting to call for action against illiteracy, Hedges looks most critically upon the portion of the American public that does not read published writing.

            Sharply contrasting Hedges, Thompson discusses a new literacy using Andrea Lunsford’s research to support his position. Andrea Lunsford found that “young people today write far more than any generation before them” (Thompson 1). Even if our generation writes more than the previous generation, people like Hedges would concern themselves with the quality of writing due to the places that we write like Facebook and texting. Many people may even guess that the quality has gone down; however, Lunsford also has surprising results for the quality. The younger generation has developed “kairos,” or the ability to change their tone and purpose for their audience (Thompson 1). Therefore, not only does the internet provide young people more places and opportunities to write, it does not affect formal writing according to Lunsford.

            Each of Hedges and Thompson’s positions have limitations, however. Hedges makes claims that most of America is illiterate and uses statistics to back his claim up; but, Hedges adds the people who no longer read books into the illiterate category. By adding these people in, Hedges falsely portrays the majority of Americans because so much reading happens on the internet on blogs and news sites. For example, my dad could be considered a part of Hedge’s statistic about not reading books once finished from schooling; however, my dad reads a mass amount of material from magazines to news on the internet. In other words, my dad is hardly illiterate, and has a variety of knowledge from reading so much which counters Hedges point. Thompson’s basis for the “new literacy” also has limitations as well. Although he claims that younger people developed a “new literacy,” he excludes a large part of the American population that Hedges attempted to include: the non-college bound youth. In order to get an accurate assessment of where literacy is headed for the American population, one cannot depend on a portion of the population, especially a portion that most likely represents the most educated people in the population – college students. With every argument, one must be wary of the limitations it may have.

            After seeing the many views of what literacy means and what kind of implications people think technology has on our writing, we should explore some of the benefits that technology provides. One popular form of writing that occurs on the internet is blogging. Andrew Sullivan – a professional writer and blogger – gives insight into why he blogs. He shows the beauty of blogging by saying, “the faux intimacy of the Web experience, the closeness of the e-mail and the instant message, seeps through.” (Sullivan 6). Sullivan means that with blogging a connectedness appears between the audience and the writer because of the instant feedback the Web allows. Besides seeing the intimacy of blogging, he also reveals how blogging takes a snapshot in time of emotions and thinking as information progresses. In this light, blogging can be self-rewarding and informational for readers at the same time.

            Another benefit to new technology arises when considering popular culture. Because of technology and accessibility, the younger generation has an information overload; from movies to music to news the younger generation has such a wide range of sources that it can be difficult to pinpoint a specific popular culture like in past generations. However, many sites like Facebook and YouTube keep people connected and aware that it creates a popular culture. Many people talk about the latest viral videos or share music over Facebook through YouTube or Spotify. Without technologies, our culture wouldn’t be as diverse, yet so connected at the same time as it is today.

            Along with the other benefits, technology allows for people to interact with a variety of forms of writing from pithy sayings to long news articles. For example, currently on my Facebook, I can see many clever sayings, poetry, and even lyrics from a song a boy is writing. And with just clicking a button, I can scroll through people’s opinions on the blogs I’m following; then, with one more click, I can see the latest news about the Italian cruise that crashed. The diversity of reading and can only help expand how we express ourselves and relate to one another building stronger human connections.

            With every advantage to new technology, disadvantages appear. Nicholas Carr wrote an article “Is Google Making us Stupid?” concerning himself that his attention span seems shorter and the access to so much information might give humans the illusion of intelligence. Carr claims that “it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence” (Carr 8). Otherwise saying that people’s knowledge base is spread too thin that we no longer have deep knowledge on a particular subject, but rather a little bit of knowledge on too many subjects so that we seem more knowledgeable than we really are.

            Because people can post anything on the internet with ease, people cannot trust the information they see without verifying it with several different credible sources. In my own experience, this can blur the lines so much between what seems true and what doesn’t that some people can no longer tell the differences between facts and opinions. For example, most people view the occurrence of global warming as a true fact. Yet, people debate the fact so that some get lost and see global warming as an opinion that may not be true. To overcome this blur, the line between fact and opinion needs to be taught and critical thinking used when looking at information.

            In addition to these disadvantages, I fear that the internet may facilitate laziness. Carr also says people look for the fast treasure on the internet, which in my experience, is terrifyingly accurate. I only say “terrifyingly” because searching for information this way changes how we think and has costly repercussions. With the ability to find any information we need at the click of a button, going to the library in search of books with rich information seems too hard. Therefore, our laziness limits us to what we see on the internet which could potentially keep us narrow-minded.

            Comparing disadvantages with the advantages, I would say that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages by a ton. The intimacy of author and audience, the connectedness of popular culture, and the variety of writing one can interact with outcompete disadvantages that can be fixed with more education and self-control. We can fix the “artificial intelligence” with choosing topics to research further in depth and choosing other topics to just grasp the basic idea. We can fix the confusion of credible sources by education on what make a source credible for information. And we can fix our laziness by acknowledging that we may find other or better information if we look other places than just the internet. With these simple fixes, people can address all the concerns of the internet and harness the true power that the internet has as a tool of bringing people together.

Reflection

                As a new blogger, I had no expectations about blogging for this class. However, my blogs and the blogs of my classmates have given me interesting perspectives into how blogging works. Mostly, I was surprised about how easy and open the communication in blogs is compared with other forms of writing. I have grown to respect the place blogging holds in the literate world. However, blogging for a class produces its own challenges. Having these frequent posts that are not as formal as a paper, but still need to be formal enough for a classroom makes it difficult to find the right balance. Every post of mine varies on how formal it is. Another challenge to blogging for this class is it adds another audience – my classmates. This puts on different kinds of pressures than just giving the paper to a professor because I don’t want my posts to seem boring or unintelligent. Obviously, I care if the professor thinks I am boring, just not as much as I care about my classmates thinking that.

                I have found it most interesting how similar our web surfing was and how it contributes to writing. With the limitless types of music, shows, and activities that people participate in and make us so unique, the internet – which made the vast number of these things possible – also brings us together so that we do have a unified popular culture like all the other generations before us.

                Although I have become aware of my web habits and have read several articles on the consequences of these habits on reading and writing, I have not changed my ways. I do have a better understanding of why people think our generation is stupid or brilliant, but I feel like my habits do not contribute to or prove one side or another. In other words, I do appreciate each side of the good versus evil aspects of the internet, but I’m not going to change what I do on my computer.

Optimism V. Pessimism

                Scribner points to the face that literacy is a social achievement and is defined by the place and time that the person is in. For example, Scribner shows that literacy in history ranges from signing your own name to memorizing a religious text. She notes how the lack of consensus of literacy – like Hedges saying most of American is illiterate – comes from the differing views on what literacy’s social purposes are. With this view, Scribner gives a more optimistic perspective on literate people than both Hedges and Carr gave. Although Scribner’s view was optimistic, Thompson had the most optimistic view of literacy in the United States in his article “New Literacy.” Thompson discusses how Andrea Lunsford studied first-year students and determined that their literacy rates have not decreased due to the internet, and in fact the internet has helped them in adjusting their writing for an audience.

                The most obvious comparisons between the optimistic and pessimistic views on literacy are between Thompson and Carr because they both deal with how the internet affects people. Carr claims that the internet is breaking concentration and makes it harder for people to read for an extended period of time – which hurts our intelligence. However, Thompson concluded that the internet gives younger people an outlet for writing and therefore prepares them better for writing for a specific audience. Both of these points are valid. Carr talks about what the internet did to our reading and Thompson discusses what the internet has done to our writing skills. Maybe this is where we have to say that the internet has both positive and negative aspects, and while it does break our concentration, it makes us stronger writers. The internet – like most things in life – is not entirely bad or good.

                Comparisons between Thompson and Hedges provide more complications, however. Each article shows limitations due to their one-sided perspectives. Hedges discusses statistics that he twists so that he can say that most Americans are illiterate. But, Thompson focuses all his information on a study done on college freshmen. Because this study does not include most of the population and focuses only on a group that could be considered more intelligent than the general populace, we need to take the information with the context. In other words, both Hedges and Thompson’s claims about literate America may not be entirely accurate.

Are we Illiterate?

Chris Hedges’s “America the Illiterate” brings a sinister view onto the table about the way America thinks and reads. He claims that one-third of Americans are illiterate – defining illiterate as not being able to read at all or having such a low reading level that people cannot decipher truth from lies and cannot make good decisions. To Hedges, literacy is having the ability to sift through all the information in order to make informed decisions from picking the right kind of food to picking the next president. Upon reading this view about the American public, my first response was to immediately reject what Hedges was saying or find a hole in his argument to prove him wrong. But, thinking through his argument a second time, I thought I had better come to terms with the fact that a large portion of our country cannot read so that I do not become a part of the problem. First we have to acknowledge the problem, and then the country can work to fix it. However, if the data of campaigning that Hedges discusses is true, where is the motivation to fix it? Campaigns seem to be dumb down for the one-third of the population that cannot determine which information to believe. This scares me that the heads of our country set the bar lower for people to vote rather than raise the bar and bring up level of literacy for the entire country.

Carr and Hedges both concern themselves with how reading affects society as a whole and both claim that intelligence is becoming “artificial.” By artificial, I mean that because of the reading habits people only spew of facts that they read without doing in depth research on them. For Hedges, people believe the slogans and the pictures they see which does not provide much substance for people to make accurate decisions. On the other hand, Carr observes that people do not do in depth research when they have the internet that provides abstracts that summarize the information – this prevents people deciphering the truth as well. So, according to both of these men, the illiterate and the literate do not discover the truth. If this is true, our country is in trouble.

We're Probably Lazy, Not Stupid

Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making us Stupid?” contains interesting points about how the internet changes our thinking, yet holds a counterpoint in its very creation. Introducing the article, Carr says that he and many others he speaks to cannot focus their attention longer than a few pages when reading, and if a blog has more than 4 paragraphs then he and the others will skim it. In short, he says that the internet has ruined his concentration. However, he wrote this article to be seven pages, published it, and I will assume expected it to be read. See the irony yet? This article claims that people cannot focus for more than three pages, but he contradicts his point by writing an article for more than three pages and anticipating people to read it. If he wholeheartedly believed that people will not focus because the internet ruined all people’s concentration, Carr probably would have kept his article very short.

                Comparing logs with my classmates, I can almost back Carr’s point up that we do not focus much time on each page on the internet, which could be due to our lack of concentration or that we are looking for a fast find of treasure. On the logs, we see a lot of people using sites like YouTube or Facebook which they do not spend much time on; from experience, it may not just be the way that internet changes our thinking, but the particular website we are on. Countering Carr’s premise that people can no longer focus for long amounts of time because of the internet, I will point out that my classmates and I did spend a large amount of time on sites like Netflix, which does take focus to follow the plot of the show or the movie that they are watching. Now, Carr may point out that watching TV is different from reading, but it appears that my classmates spent a good amount of time on news websites which usually requires reading.

                I do not think Carr is completely wrong in his analysis of how technology is changing our thinking, but I do think that Carr has blamed the wrong part of our culture. He points out that people are looking for the fast find or good information by using the internet which breaks our concentration. I disagree that our concentration is the problem. If concentration was the problem, Carr wouldn’t be able to write this well-worded article or people wouldn’t be able to watch movies. Instead of the lack of concentration being the problem, I think it is that the internet facilitates our laziness in our culture. Yes, I think that if a Literature Major cannot focus enough to read a part of his passion, he is lost and lazy. So, the internet is not the problem, it is people letting their own laziness get the best of them.