We started off the week back with our dear friend Birkerts. Continuing his argument, in “The Electronic Age,” I still do not agree with him because of his one-sided arguments. He does not allow readers like me to get too deeply drawn into his writing because of his lack of counterargument. Birkerts continues to argue that language and common literature is slowly deteriorating and becoming obsolete with the rise of technology in society. Children are getting too much into technology and learning in a less intellectual and social way that is overall affecting their ability to think abstractly. My view still stands on Birkerts that he is too closed minded. He is much older than the electronic age, and has not lived and learned through the recent technology that my generation has gotten to experience. He continues to bring up the past and “how good it was,” instead of adapting to the new fate of humanity as it seems.
On the flip side, McLuhan has presented an argument that we have not seen recently when discussing this topic, which is: The recent skyrocket of media of all types, whether it be social media, news, or television, has benefited society in a variety of ways. We are now able to communicate across the world, instead of in our local communities. This is an argument that will be supported by my generation and those that are pro-technology, and is essentially a counterargument of Birkerts. An idea that I like to think about when it comes to social media and benefits, are the increased number of life and career options people all ages are now exposed to. Whether it be finding a job, being exposed to a future interest through social media, or using technology to get human connections to better benefit yourself, media has most certainly helped. For example, the platform “LinkedIn” has brought together the world of business, resumés and social media to create a community of bright people, young and old, together by making connections in the business world. McLuhan’s book is certainly not a normal book, as there are many pictures that go along with them, and some are very abstract. I’m not sure if this strengthens his argument or weakens it (by confusing the reader). If the reader is able to think very abstractly and use their own interpretations the images to see differently, this will strengthen his argument.
I want to discuss something that I was thinking while we were in the print room, after reading “Should Everybody Write?” A main point I saw in the reading was we “see too many people, with too little talent, writing about too many things” (Baron 1). I did not think of this downside to technology while doing readings in Birkerts. Though I mainly disagree with this side of the argument, I see where Baron is coming from and could argue for his point. Technology allows people to put whatever words they want out for the world to see, without much remorse. There is little to no editing process, accidental publications, and no mediation. While in the printing room, looking around at all of the tiny upside down and backwards letters and imagining using them to write is amazing to me. One of the first thoughts that came to me after sitting down is: You really have to mean what you’re saying when printing. For example, Donald Trump would not have said all of the controversial things he has put out on social media if he had to print every word of it. There would be time for editing, consulting with others, and making sure every word has as much meaning as possible before putting it out into the world. I’m glad we got to go into the printing room and experience what it is like for a printer to do their work.
Chris's Blog 