While I am sitting here reading Geisler et al and his views of IT's capability, and evolution and it's role in shaping the current society of today, I feel as though I am part of this evolution, that every person who picks up a device and searches on the internet layers yet another digital coating on the continuing metamorphoses of IT advancement.
How an intended audience (or unintended) responds to a specifically designed piece of rhetoric interlaced into a text used found in "information technologies (that) provide an opportunity to explore fundamental theoretical issues of text in new ways" (Geisler et al, 3) -- be it a uploaded youtube video, a google doc talking on the importance of information technology, or a future presidents inspiring speech to a Democratic Convention.
Whereas living biological organisms continue to evolve over centuries due to natural selection and adaptation, informational technology evolves over minutes, seconds, even nano bytes due to society's rapidly enhanced understanding of it. "ITexts--in their newly emerging genres, publishing and circulation patterns, and occasions and situations of use--will develop according to the situations, relationships, and activities within which they will be accessed and comprehended" (Geiser et al, 13). So not only do ITexts conform to different societies, religions, and all accessible forms of information technology but conformation is shared by both, with both being equally shaped and influenced by the other.
The ability of humans to relay a desired combination of rhetoric into a recognized and (though not always) accepted way of learning and communication has evolved into information technology that can be accessed nearly anywhere in, or out, of this world. You realize yourself part of something larger, something more interconnected than most would imagine, part of a changing, writhing digital world. A place where one and all feel some semblance of power because of the information so readily available at their finger prints.
* Could you consider Obama's speech here at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 a form of IT rhetoric?
Hi Cavin!
ReplyDeleteAwesome post! I really liked the way you framed our experiences of digital rhetoric in the context of a larger cultural evolution. I totally agree with you that ITexts (of all kinds) are facilitating communication--and actually, communities--that would have been impossible in the past. Do you think communities formed through online communication are less valid than those formed through "in-person" communication? Does communication require a jump from on-line to in-person to be validated? I think of a couple who meets through Match.Com finally meeting in real life...Does their relationship finally become "real" when they meet, or was it real when it only existed in a virtual ether? Your blog raises excellent questions!
By the way, are you from Livingston? Yay for Park High alumni!
Hey Cavin, I agree with Lainey that you raise interesting ideas about the co-evolution of us as a species and our product of Info tech. Having the benefit of being present and fully aware of what was happening when the IT revolution really started picking up steam in the mid to late '90s, I become amazed at how much things have actually changed. I think I might have a round-a-bout answer to Lainey's questions about the validity of virtual relationships. It seems that IT produced different and new ways of communicating, in much the same way that the telephone (and even the telegraph) did in days of yore ;-). I remember when AOL chat-rooms were alive with chatter and people trying to figure out how to talk to each other in this new fashion. Soon, cellular tech came along and texting became a new form of communication. Now, the web is so integrated with daily, hourly lives that (even slightly delayed) realtime communication on the fly with anyone anywhere is as simple as reaching into our pockets when our phone vibrates. And the answer I promised... since this ease of communication has become so readily available, it has become easier to maintain existing relationships (ex. my Dad lives in the Boise area, but we keep in touch through Facebook all the time). Personally, I lean toward not wanting virtual relationships to attain any level of validity on a social level, but I think that my personal feelings are wrong, and perhaps, people can develop truly intimate relationships online.
ReplyDeleteYou articulated this very well, Cavin--I touched on this is my own post, but you laid it out much more clearly!
ReplyDeleteI really think we right in the thick of a transition stage right now, and I'm not quite sure how short or long this stage will be. One one hand, I see technology fully integrated into our daily lives and how we socialize (Just imagine the mob that would come down the mall if MSU announced that they were getting rid of all the computers and internet access on campus....)
On the other, I'm with Kelly in that I don't see virtual socialization/communication completely standing in for face-to-face time. If that were the case, long distance couples could keep their relationship going without really any change, but that isn't how it works--most people who try long distance don't work out. (there are, of course, exceptions to everything...)
It's been a while since I was a biology person, but I almost wonder what a study of the co-evolution of humans and tech would look like. How much are we creating the new tech, versus the tech acting upon us?