On Situatedness and Margin Tats

Note: apparently, this semester I lack syllabus "literacy."  I recently realized I read both Wysocki and Johnson-Eilola rather than the piece Wysocki & Johnson-Eilola.  Having just finished reading their joint production (quite enriched by previously reading them singularly), this stands out: 

"...we could describe literacy not as a monolithic term but as a cloud of sometimes contradictory nexus points among different positions. Literacy can be seen not as a skill but a process of situating and resituating representations in social places" (p. 367).  Nicely put. I think the accepted standard of alphabetical language and books as the core measure of communication works detrimentally to delimit what exactly we can learn, value, etc.  I also appreciated W/JE's conversion of power in play, and the ability to control society through making one form of communication accepted as "neutral."  Motivated ideologies which masquerade as neutral wield invisible weapons causing people to blindly accept them as the norm, never questioning their authority or omnipotence.  What could we learn if we did not treat language as the essential underpinning of all understanding?

Well, those were some involved readings.  My mind oscillates between recognizing streams of connection between all three pieces, and identifying the distinctive voices and messages each offers.  I feel like the above abstract person...only not quite so puckered-up.  Since all discourse is truly conversation, what follows is a scattered collection of my responses, or what you would experience were you to approach me in the International Coffee Traders right now, and ask the always-dangerous question: "what did you think of the readings?"

On Fisher, this stood out: 
"The actualization of the rational world paradigm...depends on a form of society that permits, if not requires, participation of qualified persons in public decision-making.  It further demands a citizenry that shares a common language, general adherence to the values of the states, information relevant to the questions that confront the community to be arbitrated by argument, and an understanding of argumentative issues and the various forms of reasoning and their appropriate assessment" (p. 378).  Advocates of the rational world paradigm will argue that the narrative paradigm (and homo rhetoricus) is too "situated" to be valid.  That is, because "truth" in that worldview is dependent on the environment, remains constantly relevant, and does not exist as a separate omnipotent entity, it cannot therefore possibly be a stable way of viewing knowledge or interaction.  But, as Fisher notes, even the rational world paradigm is highly situated and contingent on specific social structures to survive and function. The rational world paradigm needs a social context-- a group of intermingling narratives, in order to exist.  HAH!  Narrative paradigm: 1; rational paradigm: 0.

Also, as Fisher writes on narrative: "...stories we tell ourselves and each other to establish a meaningful life world...stories means to give order to human experience and to induce others to dwell in them to establish ways of living in common..." (p.381)  I recently finished a piece by Jana Sequoya called How(!) is an Indian? in which she discussed the inclusion of Native American literature into destroy meaning only gained through narrative interaction, it seems the latter cannot be right.  If through one lens, both paradigms can exist, but through the other, only one can survive, it seems obvious that we accept the paradigm with the least collateral damage, that allows the greatest amount of meaning making.  

our American literature canon.  In her text, she discusses how, as traditionally oral narratives are translated into written, consumable, text for the general public, meaning is inevitably lost.  How can a translator or editor effectively integrate war drums, or dancing, or color, or the scent of burning herbs, into a written "reproduction" of an oral narrative?  As I hear Fisher's argument about the rational versus narrative paradigm, it seems that the rational world paradigm would argue that the Native American stories should be translated for the enrichment of literature, the furthering of cultural knowledge, all that jazz.  But in doing so, the translation process inevitably destroys the original meaning of the stories, which can only be conveyed in their narrative context.  Seeing how the  narrative world paradigm "does not so much deny what has gone before as it subsumes it" (p. 376), but the rational world paradigm can 

Thoughts on Wysocki: 
"Each aspect...involves choice" (p. 132).  To me, that fragmented quote encapsulates the entire text.  As I went through the examples, I was struck by how traditional academic essay formats reflect the very tenets which "rational" meaning making teaches.  Unchanging lines of simple, identical text void of color or diversity do not compel the reader to consider the context of the piece.  Instead, the reader receives the unconscious message that context is irrelevant, and only the non-physical ideas, the concepts or theories addressed within matter.  Even margins imply that the text's meaning is easily encapsulated, existing as a stand-alone entity and not worthy of critical analysis on the situatedness of the piece.  The format of parallel lines, each page mirroring the others, makes the reader disregard materiality and temporality.  We become lost in the lofty ideas, and forget to make connections, to consider the author's narrative paradigm and contextual intent-- we forget the author breathes, hurts, longs, laughs, and importantly, wants. 

The opposite of this subtle indoctrination is easily witnessed in the Johnson-Eilola piece.  While they made compelling points and asked evocative questions about authorship, consumerism, and our "rights" to ideas (can we even have "intellectual property" if all knowledge is simply reconstruction?), I want to instead note the hilarious and meaningful difference that Doug's margin notes made.  When Doug assigns an article, I implicitly read trustingly.  Presumably, he would not assign something he absolutely disagreed with, or thought was bullshit.  Doug is the equivalent of Robin Williams' "rip it out!" and while I read critically, I generally assume that our assigned texts have a good meaning.  But, Johnson and Eilola's margins were tattooed with responses like, "Exceptionally poor transition" or, responding to a point, "not really."  Others include, "NO: IN ORDER TO earn money. That's what he's missing throughout here," or my personal favorite, "Hypertext is linear text - BAH!"  My reading experience was affected by Doug's constant interaction with the piece.  The text no longer stood stable and apart, an entity simply "being," but became a moving, changing, piece of writing as his words inevitably changed its meaning.  Whatever the "rationalists" wanted to convey through traditional essay format of nicely encapsulated knowledge was blasted to bits by the interactive, relational act of picking up a pen and marking those margins.  

Almost in agreement, Johnson and Eilola write: "...Texts no longer function as discrete objects, but as contingent, fragmented objects in circulation, as elements within constantly configured and shifting networks" (p. 208).

Hardly the response I get...if only people recognized how I'm changing the Interwebs as they know it.

I cannot conclude this nicely, but will note that my recognition of blogging as changing the fabric of search engines, even by just billionth of amounts, is pretty freaking awesome.