Archive | Johnson-Eilola RSS feed for this section

A Mind (Ecology) is a Terrible Thing to Waste (Affordances): Week of March 16th

“We can equate the place with geometry and space with geography. Geography or space is lived or practiced more than geometry of place … geometries are necessary ways of mapping relations among histories and constructing tactics of resistance that tie … Continue reading

A Mind (Ecology) is a Terrible Thing to Waste (Affordances): Week of March 16th

“We can equate the place with geometry and space with geography. Geography or space is lived or practiced more than geometry of place … geometries are necessary ways of mapping relations among histories and constructing tactics of resistance that tie … Continue reading

Latour & Spinuzzi Together Again: Reading Notes Post part II

Continuing from my previous post — I just couldn’t wait to share those two videos — So, back to Latour. Let me start by saying — Flick’s facial expression in the image below captures my mindset while trying to correlate … Continue reading

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:


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.]

Reading Notes #6: Hypertext

Prior to this week’s readings, I had always thought of hypertext as tools or links to other text. They were simply a way to reference and connect to other text. The readings definitely complicated my reading of hypertext and confirm my unconscious obsession with agency and the relation between the reader/audience and writer/speaker. Michael Joyce’s […]

ANTs, Scatter at Will_Latour, Joyce, and Johnson-Eilola_Reading Notes

Calling All Actors! Image hosted on The Minority Eye.

Calling All Actors! Image hosted on The Minority Eye.

Actors, you say? Now what does that have to do with networks? Or hyptertextuality? Or even Foucault, for that matter? Are you mad? Obsessed with Hollywood? Ohohoho, my dears, your lives are about to get so much more interesting. Mine certainly has.

Cue evil laugh. Imaged hosted on Upnetwork Forums.

Cue evil laugh. Imaged hosted on Upnetwork Forums.

However, before we can continue, we must add just one more thing to our call for actors.

Travel Guides. You're going to need them. Image hosted on the website Visiting Bologna.

Travel Guides. You’re going to need them. Image hosted on the website Visiting Bologna.

Tada! Yes, a travel guide. May the squiggly river lines be ever in your favor. So this completes our necessary metaphors, or does it? haha You will just have to wait and see. Now, onwards and upwards. Theory waits for no individual! Which brings me to this guy…

Bruno Latour_Actor-Network-Theory. Image hosted on Vimeo.

Bruno Latour_Actor-Network-Theory. Image hosted on Vimeo.

Meet Bruno Latour, author of Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Now, you may be thinking of actors like those in Hollywood ( Bollywood, Japanese, Korean, or Chinese dramas, all of which are amazing), but that would be a little too reductive in terms of Latour’s use of the word. While the image fits, they are not the only actors on this stage. You, gentle reader, are also an actor in this fine frenzy we find ourselves moving through. Now, to help us get adjusted as we move into Actor-Network-Theory (or, as Latour has dubbed it, ANT), I am going to give a list of some terms we will be needing for this adventure, though it is not entirely inclusive as this entry only deals with a part of Latour’s work (the second section will be for next week):

Actor-Network-Theory – is a sociology approach that centers on the “sociology of associations” (rather than “sociology of the social”). Its practitioners trace the actions of “actors,” following moments of controversies and uncertainties in relation to group formation, maintenance, and dissolution: “in situations where innovations proliferate, where group boundaries are uncertain, when the range of entities to be taken into account fluctuates, the sociology of the social is no longer able to trace actors’ new associations. At this point, the last thing to do would be to limit in advance the shape, size, heterogeneity, and combination of associations…it is no longer enough to limit actors to the role of informers offering cases of some well-known types. You have to grant them back the ability to make up their own theories of what the social is” (11).

“instead of taking a reasonable position and imposing some order beforehand, ANT claims to be able to find order much better after having let the actors deploy the full range of controversies in which they are immersed. It is as if we were saying to the actors: ‘We won’t try to discipline you, to make you fit into our categories; we will let you deploy your own worlds, and only later will we ask you to explain how you came about settling them.’ The task of defining and ordering the social should be lest to the actors themselves, not taken up by the analyst” (23).

Latour, calling upon a comment made by another, declared,  ”the acronym A.N.T. was perfectly fit for a blind, myopic, workaholic, trail-sniffing, and collective traveler. An ant writing for other ants, this fits my project very well!” (9)

Actor – While Latour seems to give no clear cut definition of what he considers an “actor” (or, if he does, I totally missed it), he does give out statements that serve to function as boundaries for what an actor does, such as the idea that actors should not be limited to the role of informers. Actors are active agents in the assembling, disassembling, and reassembling of what composes the social, such as when they “incessantly engage in the most abtruse metaphysical constructions by redefining all the elements of the world” (51). Actors are individuals moving fluidly between groups (sometimes inhabiting multiple groups at one time), helping to define what those groups are and what they are not, and being the focal point of “social” activity that sociologists are (in the boundaries of “sociology of associations”) supposed to be tracing (rather than defining and limiting).

Tracing of Associations – “In this meaning of the adjective, social does not designate a thing among other things, like a black sheep among other white sheep, but a type of connection between things that are not themselves social” (5)

Sociology of the Social - Latour, very openly, decries the pathways and objectives of this brand of sociology as he finds their methods too engaged with political aims than with the original goals of social sciences (“the political agenda of many social theorists has taken over their libido sciendi” (49)). He describes them as, essentially, what not to do with sociology, as they are too limiting and not looking from the right angles. For example, “When sociologists of the social pronounce the words ‘society,’ ‘power,’ ‘structure,’ and ‘context,’ they often just straight ahead to connect vast arrays of life and history, to mobilize gigantic forces, to detect dramatic patterns emerging out of confusing interactions, to see everywhere in the cases at hand yet more examples of well-known types, to reveal behind the scenes some dark powers pulling the strings” (22).

Sociology of Associations – On the other side of this sociological divide are the sociologists of association. These practitioners seem to be in the relatively good graces of Latour (I’m not even kidding when I say that he will openly bash whoever and whatever he thinks is frolicking in the wrong social sciences’ direction), as they focus on the associations within which the social emerges and dissolves: “[Sociologists of associations'] duty is not to stabilize–whether at the beginning for clarity, or to look for reasonable–the list of groupings making up the social. Quite the opposite: their starting point begins precisely with the controversies about which grouping one pertains to including of course the controversies among social scientists about what the social world is made of” (29).

Intermediary – “is what transports meaning or force without transformation: defining its inputs is enough to define its outputs…No matter how complicated an intermediary is, it may, for all practical purposes, count for just one–or for even nothing at all because it can be easily forgotten” (39).

Mediators – “cannot be counted as just one; they might count for one, for nothing, for several, or for infinity. Their input is never a good predictor of their output; their specificity has to be taken into account every time. Mediators transform, translate, distort, and modify the meaning or the elements they are supposed to carry…No matter how apparently simple a mediator may look, it may become complex; it may lead in multiple directions which will modify all the contradictory accounts attributed to its role” (39)

Meta-language - is “a language used to talk about language” (Merriam-Webster Online). Latour states that actors have their “own elaborate and fully reflexive meta-language” upon which sociologists should not encroach (30)

Infra-language – language that “remains strictly meaningless except for allowing displacement from one frame of reference to the next” (30).

Now that we have a lexicon with which to approach Latour’s work, let’s get moving into our roles as ants reading about an ant writing for other ants.

We are all just ANTs in Actor-Network-Theory. Image hosted on the website Families.

We are all just ANTs in Actor-Network-Theory. Image hosted on the website Families.

I really enjoyed reading the first part of Latour’s book,  with his snarky comments, brutal honesty about how he sees the direction of his field, circular thinking, and just the language he employs to promoting this “sociology of associations.” There were so many moments where a paragraph of his would give me an aha! moment about the still muddy waters of Foucault. Latour’s emphasis on the controversies and uncertainties of social sciences, group formations, actors being active agents, and the roles of sociologists helped me to put into perspective the fluctuating history, enunciative formations, and discursive statements that are the heart of Archaeology of Knowledge. I think what gave me some clarity was how thoroughly he seeks to completely shred the idea of permanency that seems so inherent in society and social groups. When we discuss civilization and civilized lives, it is in opposition to the wild, ever-changing face of nature, and yet, there our civilizations are just as fluid (maybe even more so) as nature. As Latour mentions, “For ANT, if you stop making and remaking groups, you stop having groups. No reservoir of forces flowing from ‘social forces’ will help you….Whereas, for the sociologists of the social, the great virtue of appeals to society is that they offer this long lasting stability on a plate and for free, our school views stability as exactly what has to be explained by appealing to costly and demanding means” (35). Here again, Foucault seems to resonate. Controversies, uncertainties, ruptures, suspicions over stability. By looking towards a sociology where activities, actors, analysis are in constant motion, not just layering one on top of the other, but with movement like atoms in motion.

It took a few moments for me to wrap my mind around the idea that a group dissolves once effort has stopped being placed in the sustaining of a group. What about all of those historical groups that still influence our modes of thinking, our current choices, and the ways we see how we want the future to unfold? But, then I realized that by continuing to draw upon, adapt, enhance, and introduce to others groups of the past, effort and means are still being funneled into that group. Take, for example, a university (it was the example that popped into my head while I was reading). What composes a university? A university, with its various departments, potentially looks stable from an outsider’s perspective. It is an institution set in place to deliver knowledge onto maturing generations, helping to guide them towards the next stage of their life while also populating the ranks of the colleges, departments, and disciplines. Places like Harvard, Oxford, and Yale have been around for a very long time and can be seen as rooted within their communities and our nation at large. But, universities are a group, composed of smaller groups and connected to a group of other universities, associations, businesses, and so on. And, it takes a lot of work to keep them running, smoothly or otherwise. There are accreditation boards, alumni, sponsors, funding committees, political interest groups, recruiters, sports associations, student organizations, departments, faculty groups, staff groups, unions, public media outlets. All of these different groups are constantly in motion, defining and redefining the boundaries of what a university is, how it should be run, what it is doing wrong, what departments and subjects are being considered outdated and not worth funding, the point of higher education, the place of the university in conjunction with the community surrounding it. This activity defines the institution of a university and keeps it in existence. If all of these people suddenly walked away from Harvard, that university would no longer exist. An institution is not the buildings or the lab equipment or the computers; it is the people who ascribe to being a part of that institution that give it life and meaning. The same goes for a civilization, or even a species.  A group must be composed of something, even if they are  fragments of what had been continually being called into existence by the memories and dialogues of others.

Megamind. Image hosted on the website Comic Mix.

Megamind. Image hosted on the website Comic Mix.

Ah, right. Sorry about that long-winded monologue (well, I guess this whole thing is a monologue, really). Anyways, it was in this stream of thought where I remember Latour criticizing the efforts of the sociologists of the social for distancing themselves from this beehive of activity and his acknowledgement of the sociologists of associations’ opposite approach: “For the sociologists of associations, any study of any group by any social scientist is part and parcel of what makes the group exist, last, decay, or disappear. In the developed world, there is no group that does not have at least some social science instrument attached to it. This is not some ‘inherent limitation’ of the discipline due to the fact that sociologists are also ‘social members’ and have difficulties in ‘extracting themselves’ out of the bonds of their own ‘social categories.’…Although in the first school [sociology of the social] actors and scholars are in two different boats, in the second school [associations] they remain in the same boat all along and play the same role” (33-34). As I am not a sociologist or a social scientist (literature is my flavor of academics), I cannot be sure how sociologists of the social feel about their role in society and the extent to which they perceive themselves to be part of the beehive of living. I love the idea of people, regardless of where they are living and how old they are and what background they are from, recognizing that we are all just little ants living in a particularly complex system because we have made it complex. People may claim that they are “sticking it to the man” or “going around the system,” but we are the system and we are the man. Society is based on collective agreement, even if that agreement is unconsciously indoctrinated from childhood all the way up until death. Civilization is really just a group of people, however loosely tied or tightly knit, functioning together, until that system is abandoned, dissolved, replaced.

haha I know, again with the rants? I’ll try to behave from here on out. Maybe…

So, as part of his goal, Latour outlines five “major uncertainties” that he explores in his book (for this week, we only read three of the five):

1) “the nature of groups: there exist many contradictory ways for actors to be given identity;”

2) “the nature of actions: in each course of action a great variety of agents seem to barge in and displace the original goals;”

3) “the nature of objects: the type of agencies participating in interaction seems to remain wide open;”

4) “the nature of facts: the links of natural sciences with the rest of society seems to be the source of continuous disputes;”

5) “and, finally, about the type of studies done under the label of a science of the social as it is never clear in which precise sense social sciences can be said to be empirical” (22).

I wanted to lay out this list to give myself a reminder as to how Latour saw his exploration playing out. Before I move on, there was one more moment of this first section of the book that I wanted to draw attention to: “empirical metaphysics.” What exactly does that entail you ask? Well, according to Latour, empirical metaphysics is “what the controversies over agencies lead to since they ceaselessly populate the world with new drives and, as ceaselessly, contest the existence of others” (51). Maybe my brain just died at the word metaphysics (physics was mind-boggling enough), but this is definitely a concept that I am going to have to tease out before I feel comfortable enough to invite it to tea.

Ah, but I did promise to move on. I feel like I will be giving short shrift to the other two authors, but how to compete with a man who so eloquently weaves a Foucauldian thought process and then can switch over, with startling speed, to declare, “Down with the Muses and other undocumented aliens!” side note: For those of you who just bristled upon reading the phrase undocumented aliens, he really had been talking about alien beings who people believe “pull the strings” of our society (more like alien gods than someone who came to the U.S. without documentation, though I guess an extraterrestrial might not be aware that documentation is necessary before landing a spacecraft on “American” soil). He also calls some other sociologists vampiric, so supernatural beings seem to be a motif in this work. No judgement.

Right. Still moving on. I should probably give the other two authors their own blog entry (or entries) to make up for how grand the academic love affair with ANT had been, whereas my relationship with these other texts pales in comparison, despite me also finding their writing refreshing. For Joyce and Johnson-Eilola, both of their works felt like case studies for what Latour was proposing. They seemed to each be actively engaging and struggling with attempts to permeate the boundaries of their disciplines (Joyce by simultaneously occupying the spaces of being a “professor of English and the Library,” and Johnson-Eilola by struggling with how hypertextuality could fit within the realm of composition.

Michael Joyce. Image hosted on the website for the organization FC2.

Michael Joyce. Image hosted on the website for the organization FC2.

Johndan Johnson-Eilola. Image hosted on the webiste for Clarkson University.

Johndan Johnson-Eilola. Image hosted on the Clarkson University wesbite.

I do want to wait and go into another blog looking at the texts of these men specifically, but before I wrap up this entry of reading notes, I wanted to include some of my favorite quotes from the early chapters of their works, especially since these quotes are going to be my link to the entry of them under the microscope of the ANT lens.

“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” (Johnson-Eilola, “Border Times” 7)

“We all hope to be one thing or another especially in strange company; however, as someone who was simultaneously a professor of English and the Library (though not a librarian) as well as a hypertext novelist and theorist, the question of whether I came to the library as a wolf in sheep’s clothing or a lion lying (in whatever sense one pleases to understand that term) among lambs was not clear at the time to me or to them [librarians]” (Joyce, “Lingering Errantness” 67)

“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” (Johnson-Eilola, “Border Times” 3)

“In ‘Coming to Writing,’ Helene Cixous says, ‘I didn’t seek. I was the search’ (1999). We could say that in the electronic age we don’t collect, we are the collection. The value of what we collect is not as much embodied in what it is as in how we found it and why we keep it” (Joyce, “Lingering Errantness” 73)

“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” (Joyce, “Lingering Errantness” 71)

For me, each of these quotes embodies the struggle of being an ant, while recognizing being part of ant-dom. Joyce and Johnson-Eilola are attempting to consciously take a system that seems inflexible and make it understand that it is inherently permeable. University departments are always in flux, shifting borders and boundaries as new sub-disciplines emerge and old ones fade. Newer technologies like hypertext also shift boundaries, becoming tools that are shaped by and shape in return the users. Joyce’s declaration of “I live in change” represents an actor who is aware that he is an actor, not just some outside observer. The activities of these two men and their texts are actions being taken by active actors, from vantage points that would suggest a bird’s eye view but instead are realized as nodes in a system that is constantly being made and remade by the people who compose it.

Citations

Johnson-Eilola, Johndan. “Chapter 1: Border Times: Written and Being Written in Hypertext.” Nostalgic Angels: Rearticulating Hypertext Writing (Advances in Discourse Processes). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp., 1997. Print.

Joyce, Michael Thomas. “Chapter 4: The Lingering Errantness of Place, or, Library as Library.” Othermindedness: The Emergence of Network Culture (Studies in Literature and Science). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001. Print.

Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the SocialAn Introduction to the Actor-Network-Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print.

Other Readings for This Week

Johnson-Eilola, Johndan. “Chapter 5: X-Ray Vision and Perpetual Motion: Hypertext as Postmodern Space.” Nostalgic Angels: Rearticulating Hypertext Writing (Advances in Discourse Processes). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp., 1997. Print.

Johnson-Eilola, Johndan. “Chapter 6: Angels in Rehab: Rearticulating Hypertext Writing.” Nostalgic Angels: Rearticulating Hypertext Writing (Advances in Discourse Processes). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp., 1997. Print.

Joyce, Michael Thomas. “Introduction” and “Hypertext and Hypermedia.” Of Two Minds: Hypertext Pedagogy and Poetics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002. Print.

Joyce, Michael Thomas. “Chapter 5: Beyond Next before You Once Again: Repossessing and Renewing Electronic Culture.” Othermindedness: The Emergence of Network Culture (Studies in Literature and Science). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001. Print.

Even Vampiric Sociologists Need Music:


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