In this paper, I focus on an audience of my peers. I try to connect with my peers by using my own experiences with popular websites like Facebook, and I try to use sources that give my argument academic validation.
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. Quite a lot of people – like my dad – see people using technology in a negative light. He’ll comment at a restaurant: “Look as those people sitting next to each other texting; why would they go out and not talk to each other?” Many of the same people voice their concerns about the internet that range from kids becoming stupid to every individual ruining the country with bad decisions based on faulty information. On the other end of the spectrum, people like me advocate 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 our society needs to weigh the good aspects against the bad aspects. Ultimately, the good aspects of technology will win.
Before analyzing what the internet does to our literacy, we have to define literacy. Based on varying arguments or even generations, literacy has different definitions. Looking back historically, Sylvia Scribner notes how literacy is a social achievement defined by the place and time (6). Scribner points to three types of literacy seen historically: “Literacy as adaption,” “literacy as power,” and “literacy as a state of grace” (9, 11, 13). 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. For example, on Facebook, if I comment on one of my ex-teacher’s statuses, I will use proper grammar and diction. But if I say the same thing to one of my younger friends, my style will reverse. Therefore, a comment that says, “I love your expression in this picture! You kind of have a James Bond attitude with it!”, for a teacher turns into “who do you think you are? James Bond or something… nice face” for one of my friends. Speaking in fragments to my peers may seem like a downgrade, but as Lunsford proved, when the moment is right, I never fail to write academically.
Each of Hedges and Thompson’s positions has 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 immersed in academic writing and reading – 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. Many of my friends’ Facebook posts attest to Sullivan’s argument; lots of my friends write lyrics and post them on Facebook for instant feedback. 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. Across campus I hear 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 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 makes 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment