Reading in the modern world

Reading in the modern world.

Writing and the virtual world

Anthropological perspectives on

computers and the internet.

David Zeitlyn

University of Kent, Canterbury

'As the art of reading (after a certain stage in one's education) is that of skipping, so the art of

being wise is the art of knowing what to overlook.' (William James: The Principles of

Psychology quoted in Mcknight et al 1991: 14)

Acknowledgments

This book started as a course of lectures given at the University of Oxford Institute for Social

and Cultural Anthropology while I was enjoying a British Academy Research fellowship

(based at Wolfson College). It also owes much to the influence of both Jack and Esther Goody.

Over the years it has grown into this volume, latterly under the influence of Mike Fischer

following my move to UKC where the discussion continues! I have benefited from criticisms

from and arguments with Roy Harris, Monty Rayne, Ian Fowler (who covered an early

manuscript in red and who, I fear, I have still to convince) as well as continual and repeated

encounters between the text, myself and Anna Rayne to whom my debt is greatest. The

remaining faults, of course, are mine.

A polemic for a preface

This book does two different things. It presents an argument and can serve as an introductory

user manual, it is intended to shape practice. The connections between the argument and

practical action tend to be neglected since they are usually discussed separately. Part of the

motivation for writing the book in this form is to highlight some of the interconnections

between the theortical discussion of how technology (writing, printing, computers) affects the

way we think and the way that we behave in the world: choosing what to read and writing

about that by taking notes. The argument is sharpened by considering it against these practices,

and the argument serves to temper the millenarian claims of 'revolutionary' practice.

The argument seems necessary as a response to repeated claims that the End of Books is nigh!

This claim has been made more and more often in recent years but like other millenarian

movements, failure of the predictions is not an impediment. I find a delightful irony in reading

Nelson on 'The End of Books' (1992) alongside Uzanne's article with the same title (1894).

Having isolated the themes of argument and manual for the sake of this introduction I have not

maintained the separation below. So, for example, discussion of the history of indexing leads

naturally to their realisation in computer generated form.

There is a further purpose which I share with some of those I criticise (Birkerts, for example).

I am wary of the historical myopia that besets those who discuss modern technology and its

social effects. They are prone to forgetting that many other technologies were once modern and

contentiously have had far greater impact on human history than computers ever could have

the domestication of plants and animals being the biggest but the industrialisation of production

with the conjunction of iron and steam is a more recent example. I leave printing from the list

since it is discussed below.

Some of claims call for a sharp rebuttal: virtual selves are no such thing. A blunt materialist

response is to begin with the physicality of the computers with which the so-called virtual

identities are manifested. The complex socio-economic web of world capitalism that allows a

microchip manufactured in Korea to be fitted (in Wales or Scotland) into a circuit board and

plastic case made elsewhere according to Japanese or American designs after having been

shipped across the world. These are sold, maintained and run using electricity generated by

burning coal mined by machines made from iron and steel... The users of computers

themselves have needs that also have complex entailments. I leave the readers to enjoy the

unravelling of those social and material webs. The general point is simple: it is all very well to

concentrate on the sense of liberation one may gain from participating in a collaborative virtual

environment in which one can create new personas for one self choosing name, sex, skin

colour, age and gender as well as degree of physical competence. I can easily be persuaded

that such games may throw light on some aspects of personhood outside the computer

environment, but much more sociology is needed to explore let alone substantiate the claims

that are being made usually on the basis of the personal experience of the authors and their

circle of acquaintance.

Even computer nerds must eat. That some people are fixated with machines to the extent they

have problems with direct human relationships should not distract us from the critical fact that

they can afford their fixation. For most of the human population machines not concerned with

livelihood (in the widest sense) remain unattainable luxuries and this will remain the case for

the foreseeable future. Cyborg dreams are those of a wealthy elite that the much trumpeted

spread of the internet does not dent. This is a sociologists response to Grand Theory!

Eight million connected users is a sizable number but even so in world terms it is negligible and

dwindles alarmingly once we remove those who only use the internet for Email and to obtain

pornography. Big business is interested in the internet only for delivering consumables (e.g.

films and games) to willing consumers whereas the theorists discuss people like themselves

who are concerned to create content and to criticise or alter existing content.

I should stress, however, that I am not arguing that computers have had/will have no social

effects but rather that their effects are not to be found by introspection following some

explorations of collaborative computer-enabled environments. Neither games playing nor the

lures of hypertext can prepare the analyst for the sociological task at hand. Sadly, the

commentators of the virtual world, infected by post-modernism, are not worried by evidence

let alone how it may relate to their accounts.

Computers are essential to medical scanning equipment, contemporary telephone systems and

aircraft. Subtract the chips and many other technologies (which on the surface appear

independent from computers) fall apart. That is where the real impact of computers may be

found. The world economy relies on air travel and telephones (especially the latter), hence on

computers. Now we could continue to argue that the world economy has certain effects on

personhood but I am not so much of a determinist...

The argument concerns the significance and the implications of the pervasive use of computers

in the developed countries of the world. In the last decade of the twentieth century, the first

generation of people who have used computers for a whole working life are approaching

retirement. They may be called the first generation of computer professionals. It will

increasingly be the case that people will spend their entire working life in an environment

affected in one way or other by these machines. The significance of the computer, whose

existence has been widely trumpeted as changing the world in which we live, bears comparison

with the printing press, an invention also rated (by some historians at least) as having changed

the world: and, before that, the invention of writing itself. So it is with writing that I start.

In particular, I wish to examine the implications of the use of computers for people engaged in

various forms of research (I shall have more to say about which sorts of research shortly).

What are the cognitive implications of computers and their use? Do they change the way in

which we think, and should we concern ourselves about this? I shall approach these questions

through a discussion of the debate on literacy and orality. In effect, I shall be suggesting that

the issue of the cognitive implications of computers should be placed in a series, and should be

considered after the cognitive implications of the ball-point pen. To emphasize this point I

review the history of writing, to show not only its own importance but also the irony of some

of the more extreme claims made by proponents of 'the computer revolution'.

The second strand (the 'user manual') is concerned with researchers who must select what they

read from a superfluity of material. I address not only academics but also anyone carrying out

any form of research. This will include the research carried out by a consumer studying reports

in the local library to choose a new washing machine, or a business executive attempting to

assess the viability of a new product, or public servants making new policy.

The question is not so much what we read as how we decide what to read and then how we

actually read it. The practice is commonplace but these issues are not discussed. Too much is

published for anyone to read it all, so we must make choices - we must exercise the discretion

referred to in one of my titles.

After briefly considering note-taking practices I look at more narrowly anthropological

concerns with the representataion of genealogies and the wider issue of dealing with notes,

photos and videos. All of these fit my basic theme which is to examine ways in which

cognition is externalized and how this may (or may not) affect internalized cognition.

Introduction: Literacy and orality as a context

Let us begin with the debate on the cognitive effects of literacy. Literacy, the invention or

adoption of one form of writing or another, has both social and cognitive implications. To

ignore these implications is to risk misunderstanding both history and society. This basic point

must be kept in mind when we look at some of the revisionist arguments that blur the

distinction between literacy and orality. Such revisionism should not obscure the general point

that literacy is an important factor in the broad span of human history, some of which I shall

review in a later chapter.

Before this, it is worth considering the issue of technological determinism, the issue on which I

shall touch at several points in this book. Consider some of the stock phrases that are scattered

through the history books. There, and in discussion, occur phrases such as:

The invention of iron enabled...

The discovery of the stirrup allowed cavalry to emerge as an effective fighting force...

The superior power of the English longbow turned the battle of Agincourt...

The atom bomb stopped the 2WW...

In fact suggestions of 'determinism' quickly get watered down to 'enabling ¹' or some other

weak, or 'weasel' word. The problem is one of functional or teleological explanation that

cannot be explored fully here. Jon Elster has discussed the problems inherent in 'explaining

technical change' - to use the title of one of his books². I do not assume that technology is, of

itself, a determinant of the course of history. Once available, technology may permit or enable

certain factors already present to be pursued in ways which were not available before its

introduction. Over the long term, and granted a large set of other factors, this has consequences

that may be seized upon as the consequences, here, of literacy. Although I may occasionally get

carried away in my enthusiasm, I do not wish to imply that purely in and of itself the invention,

discovery or adoption of a technology necessitates any change in society, or in the mentality of

a society. Jack Goody, discussing this, concludes that the effects of literacy 'facilitate or make

possible' the changes he sketches ³. Halverson has criticized Goody for weakening his claims

to the point of triviality (1992); however, the weakening of the thesis does not rid it of interest.

Rather than saying that literacy by and of itself has these effects, Goody says that literacy has

contributed to these effects in specified ways. The challenge to the social historian is thus made

more precise. The literacy thesis explains part of what occurs, we are left to explain the rest.

To return to the implications of literacy, I wish to highlight the contrast between those societies

in which there is no writing (so-called oral societies) and those in which there is writing (so-

called literate societies). To take social implications first, the strong claim is that large scale

¹E.g. as advocated by Renato Rosaldo (1983) in his review of Eisenstein (1979).

²(1982). I have discussed his use of functional explanation in the context of a discussion of varieties of

divination in Zeitlyn (1993)

³ (1987: 221).

unified societies can only be effectively administered (over the long term at any rate) if there is a

way of recording tax payments and treaties ¹. In short, stable empires depend upon

bureaucracies, and bureaucracies upon writing. Without the clerks, no empire. The earliest

surviving writings are records of trade, tax and tribute - as far as these can be distinguished

from one another. With writing a ruler can send precise messages to vassals in the far-flung

corners of empire. Written messages have various advantages over those conveyed orally. The

contents of a letter sent under seal need not be revealed to the carrier, for example 'Kill the

messenger'. Also, writing eliminates the risk of the messenger forgetting or misrepresenting a

message, no matter how complex the contents, as well as opening new possibilities of

misinterpretation.

At this level the arguments for the connection between technology and social change seem

plausible and hard to refute. There are examples of empires operating without writing, but they

did not have the stability of the empires in Egypt or Mesopotamia, which lasted for centuries or

even millennia. Physical tokens can be given as receipts for the payment of tax or tribute, and

other tokens could be used to record that payment, but as the numbers concerned increase, such

records quickly become cumbersome and inconvenient to use without writing. Knots on string

were used in South America, so it seems this claim is not a hard and fast rule, but we are still

uncertain how long the states survived, and hence how stable they were. The problem with

knots and tokens is the problem of mnemonics. There is all the difference in the world between

a mnemonic, the knot in the handkerchief that serves as a physical reminder of something, and

a written note to the same effect. Only one can be transferred without explanation between

people. My knotted handkerchief and yours may mean quite different things but the difference

is invisible to anyone else. However, if we write notes, mine saying 'write a book on literacy'

and yours 'buy a book on literacy', then the difference in meaning is clear. The meanings are in

the world just as speech is. This is a point to which I will return many times.

¹Against this, Finnegan (1988: 149) cites Abner Cohen's study of Ibadan cattle market in which large scale

transactions were managed over the long term between many people without any written records. She suggests

that although writing may be a necessary condition for empires we cannot be certain, and that certainly writing

is not a sufficient condition.

Just as the use of the plough and the stirrup can be connected to a wide net of interlinked social

changes, so too the use of writing is deeply implicated in a change in the scale at which

societies organize themselves Indeed the organization (bureaucracy) that results from the

change of scale has changed the very form of society itself. ¹ Let us now turn to some of the

wilder results that are claimed to result from literacy. Some I think are legitimate, others

overstated. Overall, the strong consequences may be summarized as the results of taking

communication out of immediate context and it is to these we now turn.

Literacy and the results of taking communication out of immediate
context

In face to face oral communication, the social context is inescapable. Much of the structure of

conversation can be seen to follow from this context. In particular, the 'um's, 'er's and 'yes's

(or 'back channels') that punctuate conversation provide continual feedback as to whether

mutual understanding has been achieved. In addition, non-verbal communication (gesture,

gaze, etcetera) plays a crucial part in face to face speech. Finally, the presence of an audience,

bystanders or overhearers may have a critical effect on speech: an utterance may need to be

tailored so as to include or exclude those nearby, and so on. Research on this topic, within

subjects such as pragmatics, sociolinguistics or conversation analysis, has already given us a

fairly clear picture of some of the basic strategies and techniques which pervade ordinary

conversation. ² What happens, though, when the social context of conversation is lost, when

reliance is placed upon writing?

Properties of the Medium

Jack Goody has explored some of the consequences of the basic properties of the medium of

writing. Writing is external to the person, and is (more or less) permanent. These two factors

can be linked to several different trends.

Writing facilitates comparison between contradictory or conflicting accounts. Several

documents can be considered simultaneously, unlike speeches. Writing can therefore sharpen

contrasts by juxtaposition, in that alternatives may be physically placed alongside one another,

1 _{Goody (1971) and White 1963.}

2 _{(See Levinson 1983 for summary and bibliography).}

making conflicts are more apparent, and in an enduring form - written disagreements endure

while a spoken argument may be forgotten.

In addition to the benefits of physical juxtaposition, consider also the permanence of written

records by comparison with human recall of events. These properties of the written word, and

thus of literacy, can be said to enable history, while orality produces myth, and to lead to

archives, whereas oral societies rely on folk memory ¹. When stated as baldly as that the claim

is dangerously oversimplified. Some societies have more myths than others, and different areas

are the subject of myths. This is not straightforwardly corellated with the introduction of

writing. But if oral societies are not inescapably tied to myth the existence of archives in a

society with writing does enable a very different kind of enterprise, which we may call history

(which can contrast with myth).

¹ A further point is made by Eisenstein: 'As learning by reading took on new importance, the role played by

mnemonic aids was diminished. Rhyme and cadence were no longer required to preserve certain formulas and

recipes. The nature of the collective memory was transformed.' 1979:63.

next

Contents

Go to ERA | Go to CSAC Monographs