Convergence
The changes in representation and communication which are affecting alphabetic writing have not run their course by any manner of means. The technological changes, as much as the new economic and social conditions which are affecting forms of representation, are still ongoing, at a pace and in directions which will lead to further profound changes. In this respect the convergence of media is a major factor. . . . All we can do at the moment is to look at what there already is, and extrapolate a little; what appears looks very different from that which has been.
The major task is to imagine the characteristics of a theory which can account for the processes of making meaning in the environments of multimodal representation in multimediated communication, of cultural plurality and of social and economic instability. Such a theory will represent a decisive move away from the assumptions of mainstream theories of the last century about meaning, language and learning.
Gunther Kress, Literacy in the New Media Age, 168
I’m not sure about Kress’s assertions here at all. I think that he has targeted the correct “agency”—the convergence of media. I think that he has established the requisite “scene”—the flux of cultural change which destabilizes acts of representation. However, Kress makes little mention of the “actors” involved. Who is it that makes meaning? Obviously, given that the book is targeted at educators, Kress might assume that teachers do. That isn’t necessarily a safe assumption.
In “The Impact of the Internet and Digital Technologies on Teaching and Research in Technical Communication” (in the latest TCQ), Laura Gurak and Ann Duin suggest that the slow adoption of technology in academia opens a window of opportunity for corporate vocational educators to compete with traditional academic “providers” of education. I think this is a more “decisive move” than the move away from the supposed “assumptions of mainstream theories” regarding meaning, language, and learning. The core of the movement (which manifests itself in many ways across the twentieth century) is based on pragmatic view of meaning—learning is something that earns “profit” in some form. The convergence of media is seen, by both learners and providers, as an agency for economic, rather than social change. The basic yardstick for vocational education is that of “competence”— learners are tested for their ability to perform tasks.
Kress suggests that this sort of thinking should be replaced with a more “design oriented” mode:
The notion of competence in use will give way to that of interested design. Competence in use starts with that which exists, shaped by the social history of the group in which the user acts. Hence competence in use is oriented to the past. It is also oriented to allegiance to the conventions of the group. Design, by contrast, starts from the interest and intent of the designer to act in a specific way in a specific environment, to act with a set of available resources and to act with an understanding of what the task at hand is, in relation to a specific audience. Design is prospective, future-oriented: in this environment, with these (multiple) resources, and out of my interests now to act newly I will shape a message. (169)
From 1900-1940, photographic educators published as many books about “composition” (design) as they did about “grammar” (chemical processes). Their approach to design was sophisticated and comprehensive. Many of the books were about a very specific type of technical communication (advertising), and the lessons there say a lot about the confluence of media types. I do not believe that the emphasis on design promoted by Kress is nearly so new and revolutionary as he thinks it is. We went through all this at the turn of the previous century. It doesn’t really look that different to me at all. The emphasis on design is not, in my opinion, a purely “future-directed” phenomenon. Design is as much about establishing continuity with the past as it is solving problems in the present. This sense of continuity is missing from most of the discourse about “new media.” Some things are different, yes, but the basic theories? I really don’t think they’ve changed all that much—I think we need to find the convergences as much as the divergences.
I’m a little out of my depth here, but my understanding is that traditional theories about making meaning — at least in literature — are all over the map. Some credit the creator of the text, others the reader, and others the interaction betwen the two. Of course the new elementin this media age is interactivity — not just between user and digital objects (which can be various kinds of representational data) but with other machines and other users. This, I think, does require some new thinking.
There are significant differences between making meaning and interpreting meaning. Yes, theories of interpretation are all over the map. However, particularly in America, pragmatic theories of meaning production have seemingly always been dominant. That’s the key difference.
Social and task-oriented theories of learning in America are the legacy of John Dewey’s pragmatism from the early twentieth century. Much of the social activity theory of the late twentieth and early twentyfirst presents itself as if it were somehow “new.” That’s what bothers me.
Newspapers were, across the nineteenth century, “interactive media.” They were the primary outlet of minority and women’s voices (albiet in a marginalized fashion), just as digital media are today. I have difficulty understanding just what is “new” about new media. It’s the same problem, dressed in digital clothes. That doesn’t mean its an unimportant problem, and that new elements don’t exist– just that what is usually discussed as “new” isn’t so new.