In Anne Francis Wysocki’s “The Multiple Media of Texts: How Onscreen and Paper Texts Incorporate Words, Images, and Other Media,” she goes beyond merely informing readers of the various media for creating texts and analyzing them and argues that the visual representation of texts through media have a relationship to the values of the society from which they stem. For example, the traditional layout of American books and textbooks are indicative of our proclivity for standardization and order, “for the quick and efficient transmission of information” (Anne Francis Wysocki 125). If this is true, texts are in agreement with the same qualities we have come to expect and admire in economics.
We are a consumer culture and texts
do not fall outside the umbrella of economics. We act like knowledge is this
one thing and commodities another, but we forget that in order to transmit
knowledge we must necessarily commodify it, that is to say mediate it through texts.
Texts are more than a simple mediation, though. Texts do not simply arise from
commodifying knowledge but rather are the commodification of knowledge. They
are inseparable from the means through which they become disseminated. Knowledge
could not be packaged and sold without them.
According to the essay “The Database and the
Essay: Understanding Composition as Articulation” by Johndan Johnson-Eilola,
this is precisely the direction in which texts are going. In fact, intellectual
property laws are going so far as to protect texts as a commodity.
Johnson-Eilola states, “From the IP perspective… textual content has become
commodified, put into motion in the capitalist circulation, forced to earn its
keep by moving incessantly” (203). Texts are now fragmented and packaged such that
the packaging constitutes the intellectual creativity and not the content. And
you might be wondering how this relates to Wysocki’s argument, but this process
reveals those values that Wysocki suggests are related to texts’
visual representation. It causes one to wonder about the real relationship
between texts’ visual representation and our values.
The argument might proceed such
that the texts reflect our values or it might proceed conversely: one might
postulate that the visual representation of texts do not reflect our values but
rather create them, that they do not reinforce but rather influence. Beyond a
certain age, much of what engenders our values emanates from the texts we
encounter in college. If these texts have become neatly packaged commodities, the
majority of which are mediated through a standardized form, might we then be
receiving messages that influence our values. These values are aligned with the
economic system and redirected to advocate ideals that promote the growth of
corporations through efficiency and standardization, processes that often
require eliminating individuality and autonomy from the human equation.
Innovation and self-sufficiency are not encouraged, but rather performance of a
single, fragmented task. The process of fragmenting, packaging, and selling
knowledge begins to look a lot like the industrial machine. And this machine
produces the very texts that relate to our values.
And I think this relates to Wysocki’s primary concern about the design of our texts: “But what might be the consequences of design that ask me to use it unquestioningly, to acquire through what I see and do the values of efficiency and transparency?” (158). What does the tendency to accept without questioning say about our value system? If these texts operate as an argument, as persuasion, then what is the effect of the seemingly naturalized text? I stand firm in believing that the most insidious kind of persuasion is the persuasion that operates unseen, the kind of persuasion that makes it appear as if its message arises within ourselves. So the question remains: do our values create texts that imitate them, or do texts create values that we imitate?
Now the question remains whether or
not I buy this argument, and it seems all the more pressing and appropriate. The
answer can be nothing other than a simple and defeated Yes. I do buy it. I’ve been buying arguments all my life. I just didn’t know it.
-Aaron
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would have to side with the argument that text reflect our values as a society. Think about the time of the Remissions and what the cultural values were: society was moving in the direction of beauty. Not only the shape of letters and their written style was moving in this direction, everything from architectural designs to how people dressed was trending toward beauty.
ReplyDeleteHowever your counter augment on, how college writing is the base for most other writings we will see along the way, also appeals to me. But is what you describe also classified as professional writing?
You made an interesting point when you stated, "The argument might proceed such that the texts reflect our values or it might proceed conversely: one might postulate that the visual representation of texts do not reflect our values but rather create them, that they do not reinforce but rather influence."
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to think about text and values in that way, similar to the idea of, which came first? The text or the value? I would have to say I think it is a flexible relationship, that texts often begin as a catalyst to our values, and vice versa. It is not a fixed relationship, nor should it be.
I also liked that you said texts fall under the umbrella of economics. To think of texts as the commidifcation of knowledge is something I don't think I could've put my finger on but you articulate it well, bravo!
Cassidy
As in the case of Alyssa and Cassidy, what really grabbed my attention was your discussion of the relationship between the visual representation of texts and our values. You wrote:
ReplyDelete"The process of fragmenting, packaging, and selling knowledge begins to look a lot like the industrial machine. And this machine produces the very texts that relate to our values."
Of which values do you speak? The "other," un-economic values, or the economic values themselves? (And to clarify, by "economic value," would you agree with this broad definition I pulled from Wikipedia: "Economic value is a measure of the benefit that an economic actor can gain from either a good or service"?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics) )
You had said earlier that, "[I]n order to transmit knowledge we must necessarily commodify it..." This sort of presumes that the incorporation of economic values is a requisite for transmitting knowledge--because to what extent can a commodity be properly "sold" without a working set of economic values? So, if you meant to ask how our economically-designed textbooks affect our economic values--in other words, which came first--that's a very interesting question, and one I have no answer for. Or are you insinuating that, in our desire to possess knowledge (which must "necessarily" be commodified), we are aligning all our other values to economics? For example, let's look at the value of love. "If I love this person and make marriage vows, what benefits do I gain? What are the possible losses? Will I come out in the end?" Or honesty: "Could I lose this job if I keep my integrity? Would I make more money by being honest?" Does this make sense? It might be helpful if you clarified which values you were talking about, because I think economic and moral values are different (check out an interesting article on this at http://www.frisch.uio.no/firstnordic/Ostling-paper.pdf). Or maybe you were referring to a third category of values, ha.
And by the way, I got a kick out of your last paragraph; I appreciate the double entendre. :)