The words of my informants are in italics, whereas other secondary references are enclosed in quotation marks. There are more things in heaven and earth
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
 |
|
|
[cont.] |
|
|
|
Hypertext is a mental process as well as a digital tool. —Paul Gilster When a global paradigm shift as momentous as writing itself, the invention of the printing press, and now the invention of electronic hypertext occurs, the result is not just a new manifestation of communication but the inception of new mental processes that impact on human experience as it is mediated by literacy. The experiences shared by the informants in this study show to a certain extent how the literate meaning-making behaviours of a purposive sample of hyper-writers is changing in response to electronic hypertext and how, by extension, we may begin to infer some tentative implications for literacy in general and written literacy in particular. Their experiences support Richard Lanham's position that "we really must cease conducting the 'literacy' debate on the basis of a print technology which even now is in radical metamorphosis" (134). A grounded interpretation of what these writers tell us about their perceptions of this new writing space and their new writing processes suggests further implications for what, at least until now, we have called writing theory and, moreover, lays some direction for future research. It is true that communicators come to hypertext from a variety of backgrounds and for a variety of reasons. There are no doubt, for example, visual or graphic artists who work in this multimedial space with little concern or need for text. The participants in this study, however, have approached web authoring largely as writers. As Michael Joyce points out, hypertext is still largely a textual medium, describing it as "the revenge of the text on television" (Joyce, Of Two Minds 23). But as we can clearly see, and as the participants in this study clearly articulate and show, hypertext is much more than text-based writing. Writing theory to date, however, has been based overwhelmingly on Gutenbergian literacy which, in many ways, has been ideally suited to the Aristotelian paradigm of linear text-based logic. It is clear even from this relatively small scale early study that writing theory must expand if it is to address the "text plus" multimodal nature of hyper-writing and electronic literacy. Writing theory must expand to address the parameters that my informant Mary ascribes to this new form of writing: Before it was more linear because of the nature of the word and the way we write and follow writing as opposed to how we think. Now writers have the ability to use a multi-sensory approach to getting a concept across. If writers are writing this way, writing theory must address their process. Although other disciplines have begun to address electronic literacy, just as other disciplines have always addressed pre-electronic literacy from different perspectives, their traditions bring to bear a different orientation from writing theory. As a rule, they do not address the particulars of the writing process itself as "a manifestation of complex and interpenetrating . . . processes" (Kennedy 243). In other words, they do not focus on the process of meaning making experienced by writers as the object of their investigation. This focus is the special contribution of writing theory to our understanding of literacy and communication. Writing theory offers a rich specialized tradition of its own from which to examine hypertext; however, writing theorists must modify their perspective and include hypertext as simply the most recent point on a trajectory of written communication that began with cave drawings. (See Lemke Textual Politics for the idea of a trajectory as a dynamical model for complex ecosocial systems.) The notion of the trajectory can help writing theorists to move past the tendency to treat hypertext as a "displacement of print-based literacy" (Johnson-Eilola, "Reading and Writing in Hypertext" 216). In other words, hypertext must now be regarded by writing theorists as the kind of mainstream writing it is rapidly becoming. In fact, Johnson-Eilola's recently published Nostalgic Angles: Rearticulating Hypertext Writing (1999) argues for precisely the kind of focal shift that is needed within writing theory. Johnson-Eilola asserts that "unless we are able to rearticulate our definitions of writing—both to ourselves and the world at large—we risk increased marginalization in a world already moving beyond conventional, print-based textuality. . . . If we want our work to gain broader cultural relevancy, we must question and remake the currently existing borders separating composition studies from these other productions and uses of text" (5-6). The history of writing theory clearly shows responsive shifts in the past, shifts which are "not so much a rejection of one coherent system in favor of another as a matter of choosing to look at different things" (Freedman and Pringle 177). There is no reason writing theorists cannot now shift their focus once again, this time from uni-modal print-based literacy to multi-modal electronic literacy in general and hypertext in particular. The genie is undeniably out of the bottle. The key, as my respondent, Mary, so clearly articulated, is that it's so integrated you can't just hold onto our present concept of words, you have to see the words in that whole environment. What we must do, in other words, is "reinvent" writing theory once again. (The notion of "reinvention" here draws directly on both the title and substance of Freedman's and Pringle's Reinventing the Rhetorical Tradition.) See[ing] the words in that whole environment also means that writing theorists must look beyond the boundaries of writing theory to a larger contextual environment, most obviously to hypertext theory and to the larger post-structuralist theories upon which hypertext theory draws. However, because much of that collective theory is based on Gutenbergian literacy, we must also be open to other less obvious disciplines such as art, music, dance, and so forth, to help us understand the complexity of electronic hypertext and the thinking habits it engenders, and to arrive at a new understanding of literacy that includes hyper-writing. (Landow, Lanham, Janangelo, Catherine F. Smith, and Johnson-Eilola in particular all make this point.) As Lanham points out, "digitalization has made the arts interchangeable" (130). Examples of this expanding scope or interchangeability are starting to weave their way into the fabric of various theories. Landow observes that "hypertext shares many key characteristics with . . . works of Picasso, Braque, and other Cubists, particularly their qualities of juxtaposition and appropriation" (170). Janangelo compares hypertext compositions to the collage art of Joseph Cornell, speculating as to what the process of creating a collage might share in common with "creating" a hypertext. Lanham hypothesizes how we might use chaos theory to explore new forms of electronic rhetoric that exhibit dynamism and nonlinearity, stating that "chaos theory stands to Newtonian science . . . as rhetoric stands to logic" (61). Lanham further observes that "Newtonian science reinforced a venerable Stoic theory of language . . . CBS (Clarity, Brevity, Sincerity)" (228). Lanham questions whether these qualities, so revered in linear logic, are as desirable as we have been led to believe. "Imagine waking up in the morning and being entirely Clear, Brief, and Sincere to everyone you met," Lanham jests, "you'd lose your spouse the first day, your job the second, and your 'reason' the third" (242). Catherine F. Smith draws on the aesthetic theory of Suzanne Langer to explore the notion of hypertext thinking as akin to Langer's "mental act," noting that both "share this implication, that thought is a dynamic system of involvements" (275). The attraction of Langer's aesthetic for Smith is that it "has the right characteristics for a heuristic to promote hypertextual thinking. . . . the act reflects a relational model of mind, not a reductive one" (279). Finally, Sherry Turkle probes hypertext thinking by using the "bricolage" model devised by Claude Levi-Strauss "to contrast the analytic methodology of Western science with the associative science of the concrete practiced in many non-Western societies" (51). Turkle uses the associative qualities exemplified by hypertext to argue that associative thinking is a powerful thinking style, "not a stage in a progression to a superior form" (57-8). In a similar vein, Johnson-Eilola hypothesizes that we would do well to adjust our way of viewing text primarily in geometrical terms, given the new time-space qualities of hypertext. Instead, he suggests we must learn to conceive of the reading and writing space in new ways. Johnson-Eilola argues that "because our conceptual structures, especially in reading, [which I extend here to include writing as the writer writes within the reading space] are based on Euclidian, planar geometry, other ways of visualizing or objectifying text are articulated as unnatural" (Nostalgic Angels 112). He further suggests that one possibly rewarding way to conceive of hyper-space would be to view it as geographical space, much in the same way as "we think of the physical world—the 'real' world—as a geographical [emphasis in original] place" (Nostalgic Angels 139). Johnson-Eilola's suggestion is an example of the new and different ways in which we can learn to conceive of the writing space if only we can push beyond our current understandings to radically alternative ways of thinking. The point Johnson-Eilola is making, and the crux of his book Nostalgic Angels: Rearticulating Hypertext Writing, is that "we necessarily think about technologies through nostalgia. . . . we (necessarily) map the technology back against our conventional ways of acting and knowing." In other words, we conceptualize new technologies based largely on our understanding of old ones. We must instead ask ourselves "how we might rearticulate these technologies in better ways" (175). One of the most provocative possibilities for conceptualizing hypertext that I have come across is Edward de Bono's differentiation between "rock logic" and "water logic." De Bono does not frame his hypotheses in the context of any technology, but rather within the more generic context of human thought. De Bono contends that "rock logic is the basis of our traditional processing logic, with its permanent categories, identities and contradictions. Water logic is the logic of perception" (9). The qualities that de Bono attributes to these two polar logics seem to me to delineate the polarities of Gutenbergian text and hypertext. De Bono elaborates,
It seems to me that de Bono's understanding of water logic evinces the inherent flexibility, connectivity, and ethereality characteristic of hypertext. Hypertext "flows" within the gradient of the Internet (or even within the smaller gradient of a CD-ROM), takes form within the individual consciousness which shapes it, and establishes meaning by way of the kind of "water logic" that de Bono describes rather than by way of the inflexible "rock logic" embedded in the Aristotelian paradigm. We should not regard flexibility as necessarily connoting instability. What is apparent from these few examples is that the time has come for a re-evaluation of Aristotelian logic as the dominating logic of our thinking (and often writing) system. Whether or not this re-evaluation has, in fact, been thrust upon us by electronic technology is open to question. Lester Faigley considers the possibility that "instead of a scenario of technological determinism where computers are changing radically how we think and how we teach writing, perhaps radical changes in our thinking are embodied in the software for hypertext and electronic written discussions and in the ways writing might be taught using hypertext and electronic written discussions" (Fragments of Rationality 166). Faigley's hypothesis may very well reflect a growing trend towards a collective dissatisfaction with our inability to solve societal ills that have plagued a civilization built on the rock of Aristotelian logic. Symptomatic of this growing malaise, noted economist and philosopher, John Ralston Saul, has recently devoted an entire book to exposing the ways in which our glorification of Aristotelian logic has created habits of thought and action that are detrimental to society on many levels. In Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West, Saul argues that we in the "West" have become slaves to a single dominant way of interacting with the world. In Saul's opinion, that way encourages larger destructive social behaviours such as competition, power hierarchies and, ultimately, war. From Faigley's point of thinking, digital technology in general, which does not operate by analogue progression, and hypertext in particular, with its nonlinear multimedial nature, may be viewed as set of heuristics humans have invented to help us break this stranglehold of the Aristotelian paradigm. Whether a result of technological or social determinism, if "electronic thinking" can help us to break narrow or even destructive habits, should we not explore how? It is not that we do not need rational thinking; of course we do. However, we need to expand our notion of what logic might include. Gregory Ulmer sums up this position perfectly, asserting that "electronic thinking does not abandon, exclude, or replace analytical thinking; it puts it in its place in a larger system of reason" (66). Or as Lanham speculates, "hypertextual and linear processes of thinking are surely the two basic processes of the human mind. We are not going to adjure either one" (271); they may present us with "a new way to relate the characteristic modalities of Western thinking with those of the East" (226). In "Material Literacy and Visual Design" Faigley, citing Robert Logan, compares cultural patterns common to "Eastern" and "Western" thought and writing. It is obvious that the non-abstract inductive patterns common to "Eastern" thought share many commonalities with hypertext. Socrates in the Labyrinth, a hypertextual "treatise" by Philosophy professor, David Kolb, is an example of one person's attempt to use the rhetorical potential of hypertext to question, in part by structurally undermining them, some of the basic philosophical tenets of "Western" thought. We need to find ways to develop a repertoire of different "styles" of cognition that are not mutually exclusive but which can work in alliance to maximize our thinking capacity. It is apparent from even the few examples I have cited above, that many avenues are open to re-evaluate the ways we think and reason. We need only to open our imaginations to facilitate the process. Hypertext, the new nexus of thinking and writing, is an ideal point of departure. The findings of this study suggest that an obvious way to stimulate new approaches is a two-fold "rearticulation" of hypertext theory as envisioned by Johnson-Eilola, and a complementary "reinvention" of writing theory that brings hyper-writing into its mainstream. A fusion between hypertext theory and writing theory paves the way for a much needed reinvention and rearticulation of both. This study is at the juncture of both and, as such, may be regarded as a kind of catalyst intended to provoke a reaction. By fusing writing and hypertext theories within the context of a single entity, this study is meant to inspire a mutual dynamism between these two related disciplines that will move scholars from both areas to conceptualize writing and hypertext (and thinking) in new ways. Johnson-Eilola alludes to "cultural studies" as a discipline capable of accommodating "the self-critique and rehabilitation" required to rearticulate hypertext theory (Nostalgic Angels 29). I would like to propose that writing theory likewise has the potential to accomplish at least some of the rearticulation Johnson-Eilola envisions. The evolution of writing theory or the "new rhetoric" into genre theory indicates a direction in which the field of writing theory is moving. Genre theory is where Gutenbergian and electronic forms of writing intersect and, as such, it provides the scaffolding upon which to build the next reinvention of writing theory that will include electronic writing within its mainstream. It is, thus, an appropriate space in which to rearticulate hypertext theory as well. The hook which genre theory extends is its vital connection to the more comprehensive notion of discourse that regards text as a "broader conception" of language than just words inscribed on a page (Fairclough 4). Lemke, who draws on Fairclough in Textual Politics, asserts, moreover, that "the notions of text and discourse are complementary" (7). Furthermore, the "reconceptualization of genre" (Freedman and Medway 1) as "the functional relationship between . . . structure and the situation" (Kennedy 137) or as "a complex pattern of repeated social activity and rhetorical performance arising in response to a recurrent situation" (Paré, and Smart 146) coalesces with Fairclough's definition of "discourse" as "a form of social practice" (6). Fairclough's definition of discourse analysis extends the concept of discourse to include not only "generic (activity type) structures" but also "textual form, structure and organization at all levels," (6) and defines text as inherently "multi-semiotic" (4). Given that genres are also regarded by writing theorists as "sites of contention between stability and change" (Berkenkotter and Huckin 6), and "polysemous" in nature (Bazerman in Freedman and Medway 87), the intersection between genre theory and discourse theory may be seen as an ideal theoretical matrix where scholars can locate research into a writing medium in which "the elements of meaning, of structure, and of visual display are fundamentally unstable. . . . a kind of controlled movement. . . . a kaleidoscope of relationships" (Bolter 31), and where—often for no more than seconds at a time—compositions display a "border and genre-crossing mode of writing, [that] inevitably stitches together lexias written 'in' different modes, tones, genres, and so on" (Lanham 260). The "hybridization" of existing genre, discourse, and hypertext theories is a strong root upon which the reinvention and rearticulation of writing and hypertext theories can grow. Perhaps a logical place to begin this exploration is with the hyperlink itself. Freedman and Medway assert that "genres impose structure on a given action in space-time" (75). The hyperlink creates an entirely new connection over space-time. It is a new and unique form of rhetorical structuration. In its capacity to link and connect, the hyperlink is both a physical and semantic form of metaphor unprecedented in language. As Richard Coe declares in Genre and the New Rhetoric, "metaphors are not merely decorative or emotionally suasive, but heuristic and conceptually suasive as they direct (and deflect) our attention. Thus tropes, as first the New Rhetoricians, and later the post-structuralists have emphasized, are substantive, ideological, shapers of discourse, not merely a matter of style" ("An Arousing and Fulfillment of Desires" 182). In other words, metaphors are at the very root of how we (try to) understand, articulate, and interact as human beings. The dynamic associational thinking implicit in hypertext is a direct result of the electronic hyperlink and its ability to make radically new connections in space-time at the click of a key. The electronic hyperlink is a seamless digital integration of alphanumeric and iconic, visual and audial, still and moving, high brow and low brow, rational and imaginative. Bolter goes so far as to predict that the metaphor of the world as a hypertextual book can now be explored (106), and Steven Johnson foresees the invention of "more than one type of link" in the not too distant future. (111). The role of the hyperlink within the larger electronic paradigm shift cannot be overestimated. A close examination of the electronic hyperlink as metaphor provides a perfect critical perspective for inquiry in that it interweaves both rhetorical / discourse theory in which genre theory is grounded and post-structuralism in which hypertext theory is grounded. Within the theoretical context outlined above, the hyperlink as metaphor may be approached not only as a textual element but also as a form of socially constructed action whose different manifestations like different genres may function as both modes of thought and heuristics of process. The "instability" of hypertext forces us to see genre as even more dynamic than ever before in a medium where Schryer's notion of "stabilized-for-now" (Freedman and Medway 107) may last for no more than a split second. We have no choice but to regard genre in this medium as little more than socially constructed action with the various levels of collaboration that this implies and which this study shows to be embedded in the hyper-writing process. Furthermore, in its close connection to discourse theory, genre theory provides an ideal way to understand hypertext as a new form of Burkean symbolic action in the new sociocultural context of the Internet. Moreover, because of the breadth of scope implied by a "hybridization" of existing genre, discourse, and hypertext theories, it becomes quite feasible to graft on knowledge from other less obvious disciplines such as art, music, dance, and so forth, to help us understand the complexity of electronic hypertext and the thinking habits it engenders. Given the embryonic state of electronic hypertext and the inherent instability of the medium, we need to devise new models that will accommodate these qualities so that we can conceptualize about them and the behaviours they provoke. Jay Lemke's model of "a generic developmental trajectory [which] points the way to a new strategy for modeling complex systems" (113) is the type of model that accommodates the developmental dynamism of hypertext and the hyper-writing process. As Lemke defines it,
As we proceed to explore hypertext and other forms of electronic literacy in order to arrive at a new understanding of writing and literacy, we must remember, as my informant Mary pointed out, we are in the cave of technology. We must take care to avoid the kind of "error" that Paul Levinson cautions against in The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution. In our quest for answers we must exercise careful judgement in "critiquing the caterpillar of the technology, in the childhood or adolescent form, before the butterfly has emerged" (109). Like Michael Joyce, I wonder "what comes next after the Web. . . . what next literacy, what next community, what next perception, what next embodiment, what next hope, what next light" (Hawisher and Selfe, Passions and Pedagogies 401). For those who might doubt the appearance of more wondrous apparitions yet to come, I can only glance back over the mere five years since the inception of the World Wide Web and paraphrase the advice of one famous doubter to another. Hamlet's words—on the holodeck or not (Murray)—reverberate with new resonance in the brave new world of electronic technology:
 The Wired Classroom
|