By Elizabeth Bluemink
for Literary
Narrative in An Information Age
Send comments to meg3s@virginia.edu
As a brand new medium, hypertext has yet to establish a distinctive character among other progressive communication technologies. At this point, writing on the Web takes two forms: 'standard print texts posted in electronic format' and progressive, non -linear texts that take varying degrees of advantage of the interactive features of the medium.
It's also unclear how hypertext will impact our media-saturated culture. In other words, a change in the way information and ideas are structured will also probably change the ways we think and communicate. The theory of transformative technology posi ts that as we shape technology, technology shapes us. And as McLuhan argues, it is how media are used that counts, not their information content. In his article, Rhetorics of the Web: Implications for Teachers of Literacy, Doug Brent outlines the hopes and fears associated with hypertextual innovations. Not suprisingly, these responses corellate to the same general hopes and fears inspired by post-modern theory.
In the following paragraphs, I will discuss the emerging forms of hypertext, with emphasis on their suitability (or lack of suitability) for intellectual/rhetorical discourse. I will also discuss how the new medium may change the ways we process information and ideas.
Conventional usage of the hypertext medium focuses on its capacity to provide information. However, post-modern theorists such as Brent are fascinated with the structural possibilities of the medium. According to Brent, hypertext is potentially unsuitable for traditional rhetorical discourse.
If we focus on rhetoric as argument ... then it is extremely difficult to see how it can be conducted in the more radical forms of hypertext that eliminate the default path or line of argument. Since the scholarly conversation is entirely about staking competing claims, it will not be easy for scholarly publishing to assimilate this form of text. [1]
On the other hand, hypertext aligns well with the post-modern, 'exploratory' interpretation of rhetoric, which defines rhetoric as an 'exploration of ideas with no attempt to prove anything.' Brent says this form of rhetoric is naturally more expressive than argumentative rhetoric.
The sliding together of texts in the electronic writing space, texts no longer available as discrete units but as continuous fields of ideas and information, is so much easier -- not just physically easier but psychologically more natural -- that it is significantly more effort to keep the ownership of the ideas separate. Intertextuality, once a philosophical concept, becomes a way of life. [2]
Obviously, there is a wide range of practical implications involved in switching rhetorical forms. Just because something is possible does not mean that it will gain immediate acceptance. For the same reason, I have difficulty accepting the possibility of a break in 'the continous fields of ideas and information.' In fact, I think McLuhan's idea of a break boundary presupposes a theoretically linear order, in which our cultural history is narrowly defined as a series of concrete causes and effects.
It may sound a little conservative, but even though hypertext has exceeded the conventional textual boundaries of size and shape, it will probably be a long time before people can intellectually handle non-linear rhetorical forms. As Brent himself say s, 3,000 years of linear intellectual discourse dies hard. He uses the example of hypertext in education:
If we deprivilege the staking of claims and allow the exploration without final claim at least equal weight -- if we stop handing texts back to students with "thesis unclear" scrawled across them in red ink -- we will have to make a radic al adjustment in the ways in which we use hypertext in the classroom. [3]
This leads me to the second part of my argument: how hypertext may eventually contribute to changes in the ways we think and process information.
Hypertext "reshapes our lives not just by giving us new tools to play with but by reshaping our consciousness on a fundamental and subliminal level," according to Brent. [4]
It influences the way we think and process information in several different ways: it extends the developmental qualities of a text, loosens the traditional standards of individual authorship and encourages active participation rather than passive absorption in reading.
It also may provoke 'meaningless associative drift', Brent says. In other words:
Like television, the structure of hypertext encourages a rapid movement from item to item that could discourage reflective engagement with the medium. [5]
All of these specific qualities have connections to the broader debate over post-modern culture and communication technology. Critics of post-modern culture emphasize the deterioration of structural coherence and depth. Postman, for example, alleges that the fragmentary nature of television programming shortens our attention spans and diverts us from meaningful dialogue. In contrast, McLuhan argues that television is a highly engaging medium, simply because it is less informative and requires the viewer to use all her senses to 'fill in the gaps.'
At the same time, it is important to realize that culture does not change overnight. Recently, some Web enthusiasts have seen their expectations for the new medium fall sadly short. Clearly, the supply of new technological tools like hypertext exceed s the current level of demand.[See related article.]
Whatever the positive or negative consequences, our culture will eventually assimilate these structural changes, albeit at a slower pace than the changes occur over time. In this sense, hypertext is an important indicator of where we are headed.