Archive | hypertext RSS feed for this section

MindMap: Week 14

MindMap14

I actually got confused and thought we were supposed to start revising our Mindmaps last week. So, I started re-envisioning it based on the Theory Tree my group did–thinking about the connections chronologically and by topic. It wasn’t going well. My Mindmap was big and hard to see/follow. There were too many nodes! Then I looked at the schedule again, realized I was wrong, and gave up.

This week, however, I had a little more energy and vision in my remapping. One of the stand-out moments in class for me was when Shelley explained that most new media scholars prefer Actor Network Theory because it allows for non-human objects to serve as actors or mediators. So, I decided to begin my remapped Mindmap by dividing the theories according to those that account only for human agency and those that account for non-human agency.

Off to the side in blue are the nodes that I need to revisit and add back in. Some I didn’t understand well enough to think about agency (Foucault) and some I just don’t remember as well. I plan to add them back in next week and start to think about other concepts that will be important to my OoS as well, such as boundaries, hierarchies, and complexity.

Mind Map #8: L8

This week’s mind map is, I believe, a week late. I really didn’t think about posting until I saw others post theirs, and it dawn on me that I should have added some nodes and connections in my map. So I did, but I didn’t try to add anything more specifically related to ANT. Instead, I found video visualizations that applied to the three theories we’ve most recently studied: CHAT, hypertext, and ANT.

Screen Shot 2014-03-16 at 9.29.25 PM

Mindmap #8: Adding Video Visualizations for CHAT, HT, and ANT

The ANT video demonstrates the need to reassemble the social that inspired Latour: a willingness and desire to discuss social as a “thing” that exists rather than as a networked relationship that leaves traces but only exists in the moment of connection.

The hypertext video demonstrates the hype of hypertext without exactly demonstrating how that hype actually, well, improves or changes the way we think about reading, writing, and texts.

And the CHAT video takes a very concrete approach of applying activity theory to a project aimed at developing custom user experiences for autistic students and their teachers and parents.

This time around, having spent a week of Spring Break taking a little break from the daily grind of class preparation, I just wanted a little bit of the concrete. The videos offered an opportunity to think more practically, or at least more visually, about topics that are swirling around my head in ever-more-complicated eddies and vortices.

[Feature Image: Visualization Wall – Molecular Data. CC licensed image from Flickr user Andrew Lenards

MindMap #7: Hypertext

My additions to this week’s MindMap’s focused on Joyce and Johnson-Eiloa. I was intrigued by the way that hypertext challenged linearity and authority. All of these theories move away from a linear and flat presentation of writing and rhetorical discourse to a non-linear and dynamic presentation. This is significant if we are to think of […]

In Which the Library-English Professor Meets Hypertext Theory and ANTs Go Marching into the Mindmap

Mindmap: http://popplet.com/app/#/1564732

Mindmap updated March 2nd

Mindmap updated March 2nd

Oh, Actor-Network-Theory. So, for this week’s update on the mindmap, I added more nodes in this batch than I have been with other batches recently. I wanted to make sure that I had a definition of sorts as to what ANT is and then to incorporate the other two writers we have been reading as examples of ANT at play, even though Johnson-Eilola’s articles were based in Hypertext Theory. I did this grouping of the authors because it made more sense to me as to why we had read them together and how they fit into the large map I have been creating all semester.

Once I had decided on how I was going to set up my nodes, I then had to consider how I was going to connect ANT outwards. End result: connections to Foucault, Rhetorical Activity, and CHAT. I chose Foucault without hesitation because, as I was reading Latour, I started making more sense of what I had read in Archaeology of Knowledge about how actors within systems are constantly moving, reshaping what we think of permanent by realizing that it is human activity keeping things going. Histories are compilations of people being active, in building societies, in defining and redefining the boundaries of their groups, and letting those groups merge and separate when the needs of the actors arises. We are all just actors in the frenzied motion of living and changing, and it is this thought which had me link Joyce’s statement that, “I would note that I am not in the business of predicting change. In fact I am not only not in any business at all but I also resent the current fashion that urges us each to claim that we are in a business. Instead like most of us, librarians or humanists or whatever, I live in change, living not a business but a presence. As an artist and teacher and technologist I make change and am changed by what others make” (“Lingering Errantness” 71).  I also connected this to a quote about the goals of the creators for CHAT as they see activity concentrated in local interactions, which I see Joyce as embodying when he talks about how he makes change and is “changed by what others make.” It is not often that I remember how much like a web we are all part of, moving and being moved by the actions and statements of others.

The other examples of ANT that I added to my map were two quotes by Johnson-Eilola: “Writing has always been about borders, about the processes of mapping and remapping the lines of separation between things. Writing constructs implicit and explicit boundaries between not only product and process and said and unsaid, but author and reader, literacy and orality, technology and nature, self and other. Although we often build these borders in order to help us assert a disciplinary identity, these same borders also threaten to marginalize us” (“Border Times” 3) and “This narrow focus [traditional five page papers] was helpful historically for composition in defining itself against a range of other disciplines and academic departments; today, however, we must expand our definitions to gain broader influence and relevance. The focus on redefining composition motivates the selection of hypertext as the topic of my study” (“Border Times” 7). I connected the first quote about writing creating boundaries and also marginalizing us to boundary genres and directly to Latour’s comment about groups forming and reforming because Johnson-Eilola’s quote gave me insight into how writing and the  process of writing are a major component in how genres can be shaped and reshaped, which, in turn, seem to form how we operate within and view our roles in society. It also reminds me of Foucault’s comment about history and how history is not some grand overarching narrative but a series of interruptions and disruptions. Human activity is what composes those interruptions. So often it seems like we think of history guiding people’s actions, especially when history “repeats itself,” that we forget that it is human choice that determines the course of how lives are lead, civilizations are built and destroyed, and how our technology is put to use. I connected the second quote about the formulaic structure of the composition essay to CHAT as it seemed to exemplify why a remapping of the rhetorical canon was necessary, but in an academic setting. With the “traditional” composition essay, it seems as if  the structure was configured to apply concrete boundaries on how rhetoric was employed by students, without allowing for a bleeding over of styles from other disciplines, which is no longer satisfying. Rhetoric is no longer to be seen only as functional in the classical sense. It filters through all of our human activities, and the remapping (though CHAT creators seem to have faltered before completely describing and implementing their new system) allows for a bit more freedom for spaces like the composition classroom to fully engage new technologies and use them to more fluidly overcome disciplinary and genre boundaries.

In Which Music Makes Everything More Connected:


Mind Map: Class Meeting 2/25/14

Suzanne's Mind Map



(Additions to the map this week are in red)

I started this week by adding the node for hypertext. There were several connections that felt significant with this new theory. First, hypertext as a tool for digital composition, there is a connection to last week's entries from CHAT about delivery. Specifically, hypertext can be understood as a type of mediation; it mediates the information, effects the message and how it is delivered then received by the audience. The second connection here is to the node representing Spinuzzi's argument that composition and information design are becoming ever more intertwined. Hypertext is a significant part of this call for understanding what is possible for composition in the digital era. Obviously, it extends beyond hypertext, but it often serves as the first leap into creating digital content, not just using technology to make a product. When we add links, we make connections, we build the network. The implications are worth considering especially as instructors.

The third connection is to a new node: a quote from Bolton about electronic writing allowing for the capturing of spatial relationships. I was definitely captured by this in the reading notes, so wanted to represent it visually. Hypertext allows for these spatial relationships to be represented as the author can quite literally lead the audience into the connections that position the text within the field. This node is also connected to a node about how networks can allow for the study of connections, which grew from working with Foucault. In some ways, the hypertext link functions as a point in a discourse network, a node.

The third node I added features a Johnson-Eilola quote about the political and social possibilities of reading and writing.  I made several connections here as well, likely due to my personal interests in scholarship of activism and what I believe to be the purpose of scholarship. I went back to Bitzer here with the notion that rhetoric can mediate a situation. As we teach and learn, we participate in the realm of ideas and create content that then effects that realm. In this way, we propel ideas forward that need recognition or admonition; we can ignore them too and relegate them to the dust of forgotten ignorant texts. This connects to the nodes of civic web sites dealing with the power to create producers of knowledge through public sharing of information and to effect community change. Johnson-Eilola's call would work in these two ways - by creating writer/readers who produce knowledge in society but with an eye toward action and change.

Then I connected this to a large node I have about networks allowing for action. It made me think about how hypertext is a network, so I also connected the hypertext node here as well.

Is hypertext a network, building a web of interconnected nodes (websites/digital content)? I feel like it might be similar to understanding hypertext as a genre. There certainly are ways of seeing it through that lens, but it might also be limited by its "toolness". What are the limits of hypertext as a network? That it relies on a network to operate, rather than creating one? It merely limits/edits the larger network in which it functions as a shortcut?

More questions this entry. Like the reading notes from last week. Perhaps there will be some answers forthcoming!

Mindmap #7: Latour d’ANT

In this week’s mindmap, I added nodes for hypertext theory and Bruno Latour’s introduction to Active-Network Theory (ANT), and I connected hypertext as a potential operationalized representation of ANT.

Mindmap visualization

Mindmap #7: Hypertext Theory and Latour’s ANT (Popplet)

Given the ubiquity of hypertext (or, more accurately, hypermedia) in today’s lived experience, I connected hypertext theory to an operationalized theory and a theorization. I don’t think hypertext has lived up to its theoretical potential, and it’s arguable whether it remains a theoretical position at all. At this point in its development, hypertext on the Web functions as a tool and a framework, not as an operationalized theory. As Dr. Romberger pointed out, hypertext as theorized in its early days was realized in applications like HyperCard, not in the ubiquitous hyperlinks of the Web.

As I wrote in my reading notes for last week’s hypertext readings, I found, in the theorized reversal of author and reader roles idealized (maybe even canonized) in early hypertext theory, connections to my own theoretical stance at the time. I wrote my master’s thesis in 1997-1998 on Tristram Shandy and I concluded the essay by drawing connections between the creation and reading of web-based hypermedia and the reading and narration of the novel. At the time, I theorized that Tristram Shandy’s narrator creates an associational map of his mind in the interwoven stories he tells in a way similar to the way readers of linked hypermedia create an associational map of their interests at that moment. Readers follow links as embedded by Web designers and writers, thus writing their own narratives.

text to hypertext infographic

From Text to Hypertext: Even in 2011, still unable to consider hypertext beyond the print metaphor. Creative Commons licensed image from Flickr user [Ed].

Because hypermedia has become more tool than theory, operationalized or otherwise, I aligned hypertext theory with a framework and connection rather than network or node. Of course, hyperlinks are connective tissues that link text or visual nodes to other nodes, but the hyperlinks themselves are not nodes. Interestingly, little agency is afforded the creator of a hyperlinked media; the creator develops a framework within which the potential of activity and connection exists, but only the reader/viewer activates any of these potential connections by following a link. Left unproblematized, this shift of agency from creator to viewer seems to realize the potential of hypertext theory. However, as both Johnson-Eilola (1997) and Joyce (1995) note, postmodern scholars can’t and shouldn’t leave this relationship unproblematized. Hyperlinked media creators continue to have creative, political, and economic agency in the links they include and exclude, in the high-bandwidth designs they develop, and in the external and internal connections they potentialize in their work.

Latour’s introduction to Actor-Network Theory provides a useful lens for examining, even deconstructing hypertext theory. As we seek to problematize hypertext theory, a quick application of Latour’s (2005) first three “areas of uncertainty” (p. 22) offers these deconstructive observations.

  • Hypertext is a problematic “grouping”; nearly 20 years after Johnson-Eilola’s (1995) book, it’s difficult to suggest there’s a single hypertext concept. There are hypermedia like Netflix, hypertexts like CNN.com, hyperlinked texts like blogs, and meta-hypertexts like search engines. And there are different types and kinds of each of these hypertexts.
  • Action on a hypertext is hardly clear-cut. If a blog contains comments that contain links, are those additions the action of the blog author? Does the blog entry remain a single, active text, or does it split into multiple texts when multiple people contribute? Similar questions can be posed to search engines, search engine optimizers, discussion forum posters, and more.
  • Agency of objects and actors is not clear in hypertext. While the creator of a hypertext maintains creative agency, especially over potential connections, the reader retains quite a bit of agency over the results and meaning of the text. The interaction between networking hardware and software, search algorithms, users, and authors, all actors in the ANT sense, is complex and requires problematization.

At the same time, all these actors do function together to create meaning, and, as a system, offer a complex embodiment of an active network.

Meanwhile, Latour’s overall goal in Reassembling the Social, seeking to reclaim or reconstruct the social sciences, is intriguing, and I’m interested to know what my colleagues in social sciences departments might think about Latour. I imagine many find his naming of social scientists as “sociologists of the social” rather than “sociologists of association” distasteful and demeaning.

References

Johnson-Eilola, J. (1997). Nostalgic angels: Rearticulating hypertext writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 3-28; 135-242. New Directions in Computers and Composition Studies

Joyce, M. T. (1995). Of two minds: Hypertext pedagogy and poetics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 20-29. Studies in Literature and Science

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Clarendon Lectures in Management Studies

[Header image: Siafu/Driver ants - Latour d’Ant? Creative Commons licensed image from Flickr user jbdodane.]

Mindmap #7: Latour d’ANT

In this week’s mindmap, I added nodes for hypertext theory and Bruno Latour’s introduction to Active-Network Theory (ANT), and I connected hypertext as a potential operationalized representation of ANT.

Mindmap visualization

Mindmap #7: Hypertext Theory and Latour’s ANT (Popplet)

Given the ubiquity of hypertext (or, more accurately, hypermedia) in today’s lived experience, I connected hypertext theory to an operationalized theory and a theorization. I don’t think hypertext has lived up to its theoretical potential, and it’s arguable whether it remains a theoretical position at all. At this point in its development, hypertext on the Web functions as a tool and a framework, not as an operationalized theory. As Dr. Romberger pointed out, hypertext as theorized in its early days was realized in applications like HyperCard, not in the ubiquitous hyperlinks of the Web.

As I wrote in my reading notes for last week’s hypertext readings, I found, in the theorized reversal of author and reader roles idealized (maybe even canonized) in early hypertext theory, connections to my own theoretical stance at the time. I wrote my master’s thesis in 1997-1998 on Tristram Shandy and I concluded the essay by drawing connections between the creation and reading of web-based hypermedia and the reading and narration of the novel. At the time, I theorized that Tristram Shandy’s narrator creates an associational map of his mind in the interwoven stories he tells in a way similar to the way readers of linked hypermedia create an associational map of their interests at that moment. Readers follow links as embedded by Web designers and writers, thus writing their own narratives.

text to hypertext infographic

From Text to Hypertext: Even in 2011, still unable to consider hypertext beyond the print metaphor. Creative Commons licensed image from Flickr user [Ed].

Because hypermedia has become more tool than theory, operationalized or otherwise, I aligned hypertext theory with a framework and connection rather than network or node. Of course, hyperlinks are connective tissues that link text or visual nodes to other nodes, but the hyperlinks themselves are not nodes. Interestingly, little agency is afforded the creator of a hyperlinked media; the creator develops a framework within which the potential of activity and connection exists, but only the reader/viewer activates any of these potential connections by following a link. Left unproblematized, this shift of agency from creator to viewer seems to realize the potential of hypertext theory. However, as both Johnson-Eilola (1997) and Joyce (1995) note, postmodern scholars can’t and shouldn’t leave this relationship unproblematized. Hyperlinked media creators continue to have creative, political, and economic agency in the links they include and exclude, in the high-bandwidth designs they develop, and in the external and internal connections they potentialize in their work.

Latour’s introduction to Actor-Network Theory provides a useful lens for examining, even deconstructing hypertext theory. As we seek to problematize hypertext theory, a quick application of Latour’s (2005) first three “areas of uncertainty” (p. 22) offers these deconstructive observations.

  • Hypertext is a problematic “grouping”; nearly 20 years after Johnson-Eilola’s (1995) book, it’s difficult to suggest there’s a single hypertext concept. There are hypermedia like Netflix, hypertexts like CNN.com, hyperlinked texts like blogs, and meta-hypertexts like search engines. And there are different types and kinds of each of these hypertexts.
  • Action on a hypertext is hardly clear-cut. If a blog contains comments that contain links, are those additions the action of the blog author? Does the blog entry remain a single, active text, or does it split into multiple texts when multiple people contribute? Similar questions can be posed to search engines, search engine optimizers, discussion forum posters, and more.
  • Agency of objects and actors is not clear in hypertext. While the creator of a hypertext maintains creative agency, especially over potential connections, the reader retains quite a bit of agency over the results and meaning of the text. The interaction between networking hardware and software, search algorithms, users, and authors, all actors in the ANT sense, is complex and requires problematization.

At the same time, all these actors do function together to create meaning, and, as a system, offer a complex embodiment of an active network.

Meanwhile, Latour’s overall goal in Reassembling the Social, seeking to reclaim or reconstruct the social sciences, is intriguing, and I’m interested to know what my colleagues in social sciences departments might think about Latour. I imagine many find his naming of social scientists as “sociologists of the social” rather than “sociologists of association” distasteful and demeaning.

References

Johnson-Eilola, J. (1997). Nostalgic angels: Rearticulating hypertext writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 3-28; 135-242. New Directions in Computers and Composition Studies

Joyce, M. T. (1995). Of two minds: Hypertext pedagogy and poetics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 20-29. Studies in Literature and Science

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Clarendon Lectures in Management Studies

[Header image: Siafu/Driver ants - Latour d’Ant? Creative Commons licensed image from Flickr user jbdodane.]

Once Upon A Time: Telling our Metacognition Stories (Padawan Style)

Mind Map for 25 Feb: http://popplet.com/app/#/1571354 Story telling — long has this been a means of relaying vital cultural history and identity, as well as serving as the first-ever training regimen for molding the minds of young and old alike. … Continue reading

Reading Notes: L’hypertext et Latour d’ANT (part 1)

Finding common ground in this week’s disparate readings was difficult. More precisely, Latour’s introduction to actor-network-theory (ANT) had almost nothing to do with reading from Joyce and Johnson-Eilola, other than the fact that hypertext as object might be an instantiated mediator within a collective. More precisely, the hypertext itself may function as a trace of the collective, with actors including codewriters, narrative writers, software, hardware, network connections, and other elements required to read and interact with a hypertextual “document.”

With little common ground to try to synthesize, I’ll opt this week to omit summary and focus on key concepts, quotes, and course connections. Who knows, I might surprise myself by writing into something else, too!

What bothered my about readings by Joyce (1995, 2001) and Johnson-Eilola (1997) were how dated they felt. Hypertext theory interested me in the nascent moments of the World Wide Web (but never in its software-bound forms like Hypercard), and I admit to being among those who unproblematically accepted the coming glory of reader-as-author perusing a unique user-generated text with each browsing session. That said, I enjoyed the stroll down memory lane as a reminder of how far we’ve come — and, in some troubling ways, how little of hypertext’s socially active potential we’ve tapped. (I’m self-censoring based on reading Latour and concerned about using the word “social” ever again.)

Of Two Minds

In Joyce’s (1995) Of Two Minds I enjoyed this blast from my thesis past:

“At each stage of the developing consensus about these shifts [in conceptualizing hypertexts], new and sometimes contradictory definitions of hypertext have been advanced. Even so, a remarkably consistent line of thinking holds that hypertext in some sense represents the workings of the human mind…. [S]cholars continue to suggest forebearers of hypertext ranging from the Greeks to Sterne’s Tristram Shandy and beyond…” (p. 22)

book cover

The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, by Laurence Sterne

I am indebted to those scholars who saw in Tristram Shandy a forebearer of hypertext. In my master’s thesis, I advocated Tristram Shandy as a non-linear prototype of hypertext that responded directly to Locke’s aversion to “association of ideas” (non-rational thinking) as presented in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In 1998 when I wrote my thesis, I was intrigued by the potential of hypertext as both a pedagogical tool and a representation of human thought. My thesis in fact addresses some of the aspects of reader-as-author of hypertext narrative, although only superficially. In my abstract, I present the claim this way:

“I review Tristram’s self-expression by focusing on techniques of non-linear narration and conclude by examining hypermedia as an alternative model for narrating consciousness that emphasizes the reader, comparing hypermedia’s reader to Tristram Shandy’s narrator.” (Hocutt 1998, n.p., emphasis added)

“Narrating consciousness” was surely a bit much, but I found useful parallels using Tristram Shandy’s narrator as my object of study in application of hypermedia theory.

I’m marveling at a recommendation Dr. Dan Richards made during last Friday’s “Curating Online Identity” workshop focused on LinkedIn and academia.edu. He recommended including older, even incomplete, lines of inquiry and scholarship among papers and presentations we uploaded to academia.edu because one never knows how a chance encounter in previous research may come back around through the social network of scholarly collaboration. And then on Friday night I read Joyce’s words above. Serendipity. Or the instantiation of an ANT collective that included actors Dr. Richards, Tristram Shandy and Tristram Shandy, a dead Laurence Sterne, members of the RSODU attending the workshop, Webex, and the computer terminals and network hardware and software than enabled my presence from a distance. Either way, I’m sold. The thesis gets a place in my academia.edu profile.

In the same chapter of Of Two Minds, I recognized what I termed “an interestingly prescient moment” in my professional life. Joyce writes of early warnings posted about the potential for hypertext to be co-opted by commercial interests if scholars did not problematize its exaggerated claim to renegotiate the definition of author:

“While not rejecting this promise [of hypertext as destroyer of the objective either/or paradigm], Stuart Moulthrop, in a prolific series of essays… has argued that hypertext could be pre-empted by the “military infotainment establishment” or offered as a diversion to a dissatisfied society in lieu of real access or power.” (p. 26)

I wrote this note to myself after reading that statement: “An interesting prescient moment? My professional role [as Web Manager] is to convert what was once considered an egalitarian tool for social change into a diversion provided by the infotainment industry. Well, maybe not that bad, but it’s an uncomfortable parallel.” It is uncomfortable. One important result of reading this week on a tool with which I am intimately familiar is to make me uncomfortable with unproblematically making one hypermediated page after another in a fairly large, fairly comprehensive website. What agencies do I too readily take for myself that should be left to the visitor? More to the point, what visitor agencies do my creative efforts omit or deem meaningless or powerless as I design information architectures and implement wayfinding options? What political boundaries and/or economic realities am I activating or exacerbating, for better or for worse, in my professional role? These are questions that I’m beginning to ask of myself, my tools, and my job.

Nostalgic Angels

dust jacket image

Trickster in Contemporary Film by Helena Bassil-Morozow

In Johnson-Eilola’s (1997) Nostalgic Angels I found interesting connections to another scholarly interest, the trickster in culture. One aspect of what Helena Basil-Morozov (2012) calls the “trickster principle” is its occupation of border areas, or liminal spaces. Trickster inhabits liminal space, breaking through boundaries established by culture and ritual in order to activate or introduce change and creation. “The activity of questioning and remaking borders in relation to real cultural conditions” (Johnson-Eilola, 1997. p. 16) sounds a good deal like trickster work, and hypertext has most assuredly served a trickster function of breaking through boundaries and ushering in change. Johnson-Eilola’s descriptions of boundary crossing, while quite tricksterish, also resonates with Bazerman’s (2004) activity systems and Popham’s (2005) boundary genre:

“What a hypertextual structure and process can bring to this discussion is the ability to cross discursive boundaries in an attempt to articulate the discrete, largely isolated and invisible activities of using a functional document to learn a system with the intersubjective activities of discussion and group critique.” (Johnson-Eilola, 1997, p. 227)

Crossing discursive boundaries requires genre tracing (a la Spinuzzi, 2003) through an activity system and understanding the unique aspects of boundary genres that enable understanding of disparate discourses. Hypertextual structure (by which I’d suggest Johnson-Eilola was defining what is now known as a group-sourced wiki) encompasses these several theoretical models as a boundary genre.

Othermindedness

I found Joyce’s (2001) Othermindedness a little, well, otherminded. The text lacked a certain scholarly tone, but the result was accessible, if dated and difficult to resolve with the author of Of Two Minds. However, I found this prescient nugget in which Joyce predicts what we now know to be true: that the ability to navigate search in the digital age is far more important than the ability to recall facts and data.

“The value of what we collect [knowledge] is not as much embodied in what it is as in how we found it and why we keep it.” (Joyce, 2001, p. 73, emphasis added)

When I make the decision to use Google as my search engine of choice, what mediating choices have I made about what’s available to me and how? When I add a citation to my research collection using Zotero, what information have I included about how and why I conducted the search and why the source is important in the context of that search? These have become questions that are more important to me, especially in the early stages of research, than what the source actually says. Being able to recreate the search is vital to scholars and to those who follow our research; documenting the terms and scope of the search (and the political and social mediating decisions made along the way) are becoming of utmost importance to me as a digital scholar.

Reassembling the Social

Latour (2005) owes a debt of gratitude to Foucault, among others, whose ideas are clearly represented in ANT. “Trace” is one of the main Foucaultian concepts that Latour repeats regularly, and I believe he uses trace in the same way as Foucault to represent what’s left from a discursive formation. Here, Latour refers to group formation leaving traces, although I’d suggest these group formations have many similarities to Foucault’s discursive formations:

“Group formations leave many more traces in their wake than already established connections which, by definition, might remain mute and invisible.” (Latour, 2005, p. 31)

These group formations must be active to leave traces, and such activity matches Foucault’s insistence that discursive formations be systems of division or dispersion among statements (Foucault, 2010/1972, p. 38).

Another similarity to Foucault is Latour’s unwillingness to allow social science a “real” or typical society (to which all others are considered inferior or unreal).

“[E]verything happens as if social scientists had to claim that there exists “out there” one type that is real, whereas the other sets are all really inauthentic, obsolete, irrelevant, or artificial.” (Latour, 2005, p. 28)

In this statement I recognize Foucault’s unwillingness to allow the history of ideas to consider either some original ideal from which all ideas are descended or some ultimate idea to which all ideas ascend. Both Foucault and Latour engage in relativistic understandings of ideas and societies, in which meaning is found in differentiated relationships among statements (Foucault) or among groups (Latour). 

References

Bazerman, C. (2004). Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: How texts organize activities and people. In Bazerman & Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 309-340). New York, NY: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (2010). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage Books. (Original work published in 1972)

Hocutt, D. (1998). “A tolerable straight line”: Non-linear narrative in Tristram Shandy [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Richmond, VA: University of Richmond.

Johnson-Eilola, J. (1997). Nostalgic angels: Rearticulating hypertext writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 3-28; 135-242. New Directions in Computers and Composition Studies

Joyce, M. T. (1995). Of two minds: Hypertext pedagogy and poetics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 20-29. Studies in Literature and Science

Joyce, M. T. (2001). Othermindedness: The emergence of network culture. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 67-106. Studies in Literature and Science

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Clarendon Lectures in Management Studies

Bassil-Morozow, H. (2012). The trickster in contemporary film. East Sussex, UK: Routledge.

Popham, S. L. (2005). Forms as boundary genres in medicine, science, and business. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 19(3), 279-303. doi:10.1177/1050651905275624

Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: a sociocultural approach to information design. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

[Image, top of page. Leaf Cutter Ants, Butterfly World, Chiswell Green, Near St Albans, Herts. Image from Flickr user Stuart Spicer. Ants (and rope and leaves) are the actors in this ANT visualization.]

Reading Notes: L’hypertext et Latour d’ANT (part 1)

Finding common ground in this week’s disparate readings was difficult. More precisely, Latour’s introduction to actor-network-theory (ANT) had almost nothing to do with reading from Joyce and Johnson-Eilola, other than the fact that hypertext as object might be an instantiated mediator within a collective. More precisely, the hypertext itself may function as a trace of the collective, with actors including codewriters, narrative writers, software, hardware, network connections, and other elements required to read and interact with a hypertextual “document.”

With little common ground to try to synthesize, I’ll opt this week to omit summary and focus on key concepts, quotes, and course connections. Who knows, I might surprise myself by writing into something else, too!

What bothered my about readings by Joyce (1995, 2001) and Johnson-Eilola (1997) were how dated they felt. Hypertext theory interested me in the nascent moments of the World Wide Web (but never in its software-bound forms like Hypercard), and I admit to being among those who unproblematically accepted the coming glory of reader-as-author perusing a unique user-generated text with each browsing session. That said, I enjoyed the stroll down memory lane as a reminder of how far we’ve come — and, in some troubling ways, how little of hypertext’s socially active potential we’ve tapped. (I’m self-censoring based on reading Latour and concerned about using the word “social” ever again.)

Of Two Minds

In Joyce’s (1995) Of Two Minds I enjoyed this blast from my thesis past:

“At each stage of the developing consensus about these shifts [in conceptualizing hypertexts], new and sometimes contradictory definitions of hypertext have been advanced. Even so, a remarkably consistent line of thinking holds that hypertext in some sense represents the workings of the human mind…. [S]cholars continue to suggest forebearers of hypertext ranging from the Greeks to Sterne’s Tristram Shandy and beyond…” (p. 22)

book cover

The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, by Laurence Sterne

I am indebted to those scholars who saw in Tristram Shandy a forebearer of hypertext. In my master’s thesis, I advocated Tristram Shandy as a non-linear prototype of hypertext that responded directly to Locke’s aversion to “association of ideas” (non-rational thinking) as presented in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In 1998 when I wrote my thesis, I was intrigued by the potential of hypertext as both a pedagogical tool and a representation of human thought. My thesis in fact addresses some of the aspects of reader-as-author of hypertext narrative, although only superficially. In my abstract, I present the claim this way:

“I review Tristram’s self-expression by focusing on techniques of non-linear narration and conclude by examining hypermedia as an alternative model for narrating consciousness that emphasizes the reader, comparing hypermedia’s reader to Tristram Shandy’s narrator.” (Hocutt 1998, n.p., emphasis added)

“Narrating consciousness” was surely a bit much, but I found useful parallels using Tristram Shandy’s narrator as my object of study in application of hypermedia theory.

I’m marveling at a recommendation Dr. Dan Richards made during last Friday’s “Curating Online Identity” workshop focused on LinkedIn and academia.edu. He recommended including older, even incomplete, lines of inquiry and scholarship among papers and presentations we uploaded to academia.edu because one never knows how a chance encounter in previous research may come back around through the social network of scholarly collaboration. And then on Friday night I read Joyce’s words above. Serendipity. Or the instantiation of an ANT collective that included actors Dr. Richards, Tristram Shandy and Tristram Shandy, a dead Laurence Sterne, members of the RSODU attending the workshop, Webex, and the computer terminals and network hardware and software than enabled my presence from a distance. Either way, I’m sold. The thesis gets a place in my academia.edu profile.

In the same chapter of Of Two Minds, I recognized what I termed “an interestingly prescient moment” in my professional life. Joyce writes of early warnings posted about the potential for hypertext to be co-opted by commercial interests if scholars did not problematize its exaggerated claim to renegotiate the definition of author:

“While not rejecting this promise [of hypertext as destroyer of the objective either/or paradigm], Stuart Moulthrop, in a prolific series of essays… has argued that hypertext could be pre-empted by the “military infotainment establishment” or offered as a diversion to a dissatisfied society in lieu of real access or power.” (p. 26)

I wrote this note to myself after reading that statement: “An interesting prescient moment? My professional role [as Web Manager] is to convert what was once considered an egalitarian tool for social change into a diversion provided by the infotainment industry. Well, maybe not that bad, but it’s an uncomfortable parallel.” It is uncomfortable. One important result of reading this week on a tool with which I am intimately familiar is to make me uncomfortable with unproblematically making one hypermediated page after another in a fairly large, fairly comprehensive website. What agencies do I too readily take for myself that should be left to the visitor? More to the point, what visitor agencies do my creative efforts omit or deem meaningless or powerless as I design information architectures and implement wayfinding options? What political boundaries and/or economic realities am I activating or exacerbating, for better or for worse, in my professional role? These are questions that I’m beginning to ask of myself, my tools, and my job.

Nostalgic Angels

dust jacket image

Trickster in Contemporary Film by Helena Bassil-Morozow

In Johnson-Eilola’s (1997) Nostalgic Angels I found interesting connections to another scholarly interest, the trickster in culture. One aspect of what Helena Basil-Morozov (2012) calls the “trickster principle” is its occupation of border areas, or liminal spaces. Trickster inhabits liminal space, breaking through boundaries established by culture and ritual in order to activate or introduce change and creation. “The activity of questioning and remaking borders in relation to real cultural conditions” (Johnson-Eilola, 1997. p. 16) sounds a good deal like trickster work, and hypertext has most assuredly served a trickster function of breaking through boundaries and ushering in change. Johnson-Eilola’s descriptions of boundary crossing, while quite tricksterish, also resonates with Bazerman’s (2004) activity systems and Popham’s (2005) boundary genre:

“What a hypertextual structure and process can bring to this discussion is the ability to cross discursive boundaries in an attempt to articulate the discrete, largely isolated and invisible activities of using a functional document to learn a system with the intersubjective activities of discussion and group critique.” (Johnson-Eilola, 1997, p. 227)

Crossing discursive boundaries requires genre tracing (a la Spinuzzi, 2003) through an activity system and understanding the unique aspects of boundary genres that enable understanding of disparate discourses. Hypertextual structure (by which I’d suggest Johnson-Eilola was defining what is now known as a group-sourced wiki) encompasses these several theoretical models as a boundary genre.

Othermindedness

I found Joyce’s (2001) Othermindedness a little, well, otherminded. The text lacked a certain scholarly tone, but the result was accessible, if dated and difficult to resolve with the author of Of Two Minds. However, I found this prescient nugget in which Joyce predicts what we now know to be true: that the ability to navigate search in the digital age is far more important than the ability to recall facts and data.

“The value of what we collect [knowledge] is not as much embodied in what it is as in how we found it and why we keep it.” (Joyce, 2001, p. 73, emphasis added)

When I make the decision to use Google as my search engine of choice, what mediating choices have I made about what’s available to me and how? When I add a citation to my research collection using Zotero, what information have I included about how and why I conducted the search and why the source is important in the context of that search? These have become questions that are more important to me, especially in the early stages of research, than what the source actually says. Being able to recreate the search is vital to scholars and to those who follow our research; documenting the terms and scope of the search (and the political and social mediating decisions made along the way) are becoming of utmost importance to me as a digital scholar.

Reassembling the Social

Latour (2005) owes a debt of gratitude to Foucault, among others, whose ideas are clearly represented in ANT. “Trace” is one of the main Foucaultian concepts that Latour repeats regularly, and I believe he uses trace in the same way as Foucault to represent what’s left from a discursive formation. Here, Latour refers to group formation leaving traces, although I’d suggest these group formations have many similarities to Foucault’s discursive formations:

“Group formations leave many more traces in their wake than already established connections which, by definition, might remain mute and invisible.” (Latour, 2005, p. 31)

These group formations must be active to leave traces, and such activity matches Foucault’s insistence that discursive formations be systems of division or dispersion among statements (Foucault, 2010/1972, p. 38).

Another similarity to Foucault is Latour’s unwillingness to allow social science a “real” or typical society (to which all others are considered inferior or unreal).

“[E]verything happens as if social scientists had to claim that there exists “out there” one type that is real, whereas the other sets are all really inauthentic, obsolete, irrelevant, or artificial.” (Latour, 2005, p. 28)

In this statement I recognize Foucault’s unwillingness to allow the history of ideas to consider either some original ideal from which all ideas are descended or some ultimate idea to which all ideas ascend. Both Foucault and Latour engage in relativistic understandings of ideas and societies, in which meaning is found in differentiated relationships among statements (Foucault) or among groups (Latour). 

References

Bazerman, C. (2004). Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: How texts organize activities and people. In Bazerman & Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 309-340). New York, NY: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (2010). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage Books. (Original work published in 1972)

Hocutt, D. (1998). “A tolerable straight line”: Non-linear narrative in Tristram Shandy [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Richmond, VA: University of Richmond.

Johnson-Eilola, J. (1997). Nostalgic angels: Rearticulating hypertext writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 3-28; 135-242. New Directions in Computers and Composition Studies

Joyce, M. T. (1995). Of two minds: Hypertext pedagogy and poetics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 20-29. Studies in Literature and Science

Joyce, M. T. (2001). Othermindedness: The emergence of network culture. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 67-106. Studies in Literature and Science

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Clarendon Lectures in Management Studies

Bassil-Morozow, H. (2012). The trickster in contemporary film. East Sussex, UK: Routledge.

Popham, S. L. (2005). Forms as boundary genres in medicine, science, and business. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 19(3), 279-303. doi:10.1177/1050651905275624

Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: a sociocultural approach to information design. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

[Image, top of page. Leaf Cutter Ants, Butterfly World, Chiswell Green, Near St Albans, Herts. Image from Flickr user Stuart Spicer. Ants (and rope and leaves) are the actors in this ANT visualization.]

Hypertext Theory & ANTS

“A structure is defined by what escapes it.”  Brian Massumi, as qtd. in Johnson-Eilola 175 A colleague of mine (a fellow composition instructor who has a fondness for old typewriters — as do I) posted the following video link to … Continue reading