One interesting thread between the two readings was the way in which naming and labeling of multimodal, new media, digital, etc. text corresponds to the way that proponents think the texts should be used or perceived. In the emboldened part right under "Opening 3" on page 15, Wysocki claims that "we should call 'new media texts' those that have been made by composers who are aware of the range of materialities of texts and who then highlight the materiality." As I understand this in the context of the rest of the chapter, the composers make a "new media text" suited for a particular purpose that those reading the texts can visually see and interpret. Based on Lauer's arguments and interviews in her piece, materiality correlates to the particular name or label that under which the "new media text" is put.
This idea became evident once I began to listen to the "Audience-Oriented" section of Part 2, and particularly "Writing Grants." Prior to listening to that particular segment, I felt like I was floating along on this calm wave or even vacuum of thinking about names of texts in ways that possibly correspond to personal preference. However, DeWitt woke me up, so to speak, and reminded me that making, naming, and using text becomes an exercise in argument, persuasion, and securing monetary compensation. Also, the names change, depending upon the people with whom we speak, such as parents, colleagues, students, administrators. I was even struck by Palmeri's honesty in saying that as long as he could call the "thing" a ham sandwich and still do what he chose, he'd be fine with it. The "ham sandwich" concept also loops back to Wysocki's observation that "[b]eing alert to how agency and materiality entwine can also help us see how the definition we use -- and hence how we understand our technologies -- might obscure the agency we do have" (18), but in reverse. The interviews discussing audience indicate the materiality highlighted and the names/definitions constructed are what provide the agency in the first place. Yes, the different names for different audiences temporarily limits the perception being brought up for discussion, but the limitation happens wittingly and with the intention of creating various limited snippets, which add up to a complex picture.
After going back through this, I feel like I have no idea what I was trying to say above. So here is my slightly revised/condensed statement (since WSU is an institution supporting revision!): the naming and defining of terms related to "new media texts," etc. encounters the proverbial theory vs. practice issue. Theoretically, it is mentally stimulating and exciting to come up with new terminologies for new texts and communicative inventions. At some point, however, as Lauer's interviewees confess, the naming and defining of terms needs to reflect a concrete and valuable purpose. This is where the value of rhetoric comes in: multiple versions of names for the same "thing" may be necessary to argue legitimacy to multiple audiences.
ReplyDeleteHa! I do that all the time (though I really did think I understood it...)
ReplyDeleteIn responding to Lori Beth just now, I was thinking about how Dewitt's commentary is super important. That is, as you say, "...DeWitt woke me up, so to speak, and reminded me that making, naming, and using text becomes an exercise in argument, persuasion, and securing monetary compensation." Rhetoric! Yes.
I think in our own scholarship we need to work to be consistent with our terminology, but more than anything we need to define our terms. Terminology really really becomes important when we start working w/ stakeholders, be they WPAs, Deans, or granting agencies.
Looking forward to having you in this class. Thanks!