Annotation by Andrea Beaudin
Wahlstrom, Billie, and Chris Scruton. “Constructing Texts/Understanding Texts: Lessons from Antiquity and the Middle Ages.” Computers and Composition 14.3 (1997): 311-328. Web.
Annotation
Writing in 1997, Wahlstrom and Scruton compare the textual shift brought on by computer-mediated communication (CMC) to the oral to scribal shifts of the rabbinical and medieval times. Technological shifts promote differing perceptions of the "social and intellectual dynamics of text construction" (311). The authors illustrate interesting parallels in terms of issues of authority (equality between writer and reader/respondent/writer), authorship (decentralized primary text), and mnemonic conventions (including document design). They argue that technical communicators should learn from history in order to negotiate the emerging issues involving CMC's freedoms, concepts of community, and accountability.
I'll confess to being biased about this article, as my master's work was in medieval literature. I have long thought that current conundrums concerning CMC--everything from access to literacy to power structures-- are mirrored in medieval history. I did my best, however, to approach this text critically. Wahlstrom and Scruton strengthen their claims by providing images of both modern and ancient/medieval texts. They offer intriguing connections, such as that between microtext in rabbinical and medieval document design and modern hypertext. While some may argue that Chaucer was the first technical communicator, Wahlstrom and Scruton show that tech comm practices have been in place at least since antiquity.
Hey Andrea,
ReplyDeleteYour article is a great example of what Dillon was discussing in my article, which is that we see the present/future in historical texts. Not only are our texts rooted in history, but also our values (or, at least the construction of them). For some reason I'm thinking very pedagogically this week, so along with my article, I'm wondering how we might use the medieval roots of TC in our presentation of the current TC curriculum.
I'm glad you enjoyed your article and look forward to talking more about it in class.
It sounds like a very interesting article. I would have never thought to compare those two things! I think your annotation brings up some interesting questions, especially about the scope of technical communication. I think that technical communication extends far beyond writing, and that technical writing is primarily a product of the industrial age. Technical communication, however, could be something that was crucial to humanity's development at several stages. This all depends on one's definition of technical communication.
ReplyDeleteTo push the boundaries of the definition even further, do animals communicate technically? I'm thinking of the complex processes bees use to communicate with other bees. Is that within the field's scope? It's kind of a far-fetched question, but it's fun to ask.
I suppose I'm re-asking last week's question about the definition of tech comm, but I think the definition of tech comm plays a large part in the field's history. How one defines tech comm will certainly determine how one defines tech comm's history.
Kate-- I actually responded to your post after reading your comment. Wahlstrom and Scruton offer great connections and ideas.
ReplyDeleteHarrison-- my argument is that we are finally getting back to the concept of "technical communication"-- not just "writing" (which I think is your point as well). I believe that as long as humans have used technology (which is close to as long as there have been humans), there has been technical communication.