Lanham, Hawisher/Selfe, Cooper/Selfe: From Trepidation and Awe of Technology to "Revolution"

As usual, I'm not entirely sure where to start. However, I think I will start with Lanham, because he provided me with the most comic relief during my intensive weekend reading schedule. I will start by presenting quotes from Lanham and then follow up with the comments I wrote in the margins. Lanham asserts in the first sentence: "Perhaps the real question for literary study now is not whether or not students will be reading Great Traditional Books or Relevant Modern ones in the future, but whether they will be reading books at all" (265), to which I respond "Oh here we go! If you were worried then, what about now?!" I repeat this in a couple other places in my notes as well. He then describes computers as "handy engines to produce printed texts" (265), to which I reply "LOLZ." Bee Tee Dubs, is Lanham still alive or no? Either way, I'm sure his mind is officially blown by Kindles, iPods, iPads, etc.

I was intrigued by his fear of copyright issues in the future, what will happen to traditional notions of text and words, the extent to which the literary field will follow or resist technological trends, and his desire to "break loose" by briefly inserting a goofy font into his academic article. I also admired the awe with which he conceptualized these novel inventions, especially since I know I have begun to take novelty for granted despite being about average on the technologically savvy scale. Furthermore, much of what he predicts now exists; however, I think he was a bit optimistic that we would construct concrete solutions to potential problems, making smooth transitions into new technologies for all. Take copyright infringement for instance: YES, there are all kinds of issues with physical, intellectual, visual property, and YES, society still struggles to legally define these rules as new online applications and website for posting "stuff" multiply. Now, as for redefining the norm that "apoplexy seems to come more naturally than apocalypse to literary scholars when we think about technology" (288), I think he'd be interested in the evolution of English studies and technology. Disclaimer before I continue: I'm not trying to start a bar brawl with the literature majors. Therefore, I will tread as lightly as possible, while still reiterating what rhet/comp and lit majors have seen. First of all, Lanham did not predict a splitting in English between literature/literary studies and rhet/comp studies, with rhet/comp grappling most with writing, pedagogy, and technological use. It is 100% true that at WSU all the English faculty bridge the gap as much as possible, by bringing digital humanities into literature and pedagogy, but historically, not all English departments have been as proactive in this endeavor, although efforts continually improve.

Therefore, on the whole, I do think that Lanham was outdated as far as the way he described possible technological advancements, but he was fairly accurate in terms of outcomes, with only a few oversights. While he expresses some trepidation about what may happen with change, he overrides it with curiosity and awe. 

If Lanham represents traditional notions of learning, reading, and writing while wondering how technology might alter this system, Cooper and Selfe compose the other half of the spectrum, which is complete faith that technology will undo all things bad about the traditional classroom setting, in favor of egalitarian expression and learning for all. Since you'll hear more about my opinions on Cooper and Selfe during the in-class critique, I'll just say here that Cooper and Selfe make too strong of a case against the traditional classroom setting as well as too optimistic a case that technology will fix all problems connected to tradition. Their desire for computer forums to replace (to as much a degree as possible) the traditional classroom confuses me, because they argued this in the 1990s, before discussion forums were the norm at all, and also because even in the post-2000s, educators struggle to figure out the right balance of new and traditional learning.

Now, if Lanham and Cooper/Selfe make the extreme ends of the technological acceptance spectrum, Hawisher and Selfe present the most realistic picture of technology's pros and cons in the classroom, keeping in mind the time in which it was written. As a side note, Hawisher and Selfe also made me LOL when they mentioned "overhead projection system[s]" (61), "drill-and-practice grammar software" (56), but their conceptualization of the technology of the time made their skepticism more realistic. After all, who can really get excited about grammar software and hot, blazing overheads with a short fuse? Furthermore, Hawisher and Selfe worry that, because teachers are so starry-eyed over what technology can possibly do  (*cough* Cooper and Selfe *cough*) (58), teachers may be overlooking student access issues and issues of control, referring to Foucault's panopticon. Therefore, they argue to maintain a view of technology that acknowledges both "paradox and promise" (64). In other words, remain objective about proper time and place for new technologies.

In sum, I argue that Hawisher and Selfe present the most centrist, decade-appropriate, and transcendent critique technological use in academic settings, when evaluating it in terms of Cooper/Selfe and Lanham.