E-Pedagogy: Deleuze and Guattari in the Web-Design Class

- Elizabeth Pass, James Madison University

Introduction
As teachers of writing in various environments, it is our responsibility to prepare students to enter the workforce ready to succeed, which now includes teaching students to write electronic documents as well as the traditional print documents. However, many teachers have not changed their pedagogy to adapt to the many forms of electronic writing being produced (e.g., Web sites, online help files, PDF documents). These electronic documents are different from print documents, and our teaching needs to reflect that difference.
          Teachers need to reexamine their pedagogy to determine objectives and goals and adapt their pedagogy to accomplish those objectives and goals in a new environment. The concept of smooth and striated rhetorical spaces (from Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari) is one way of incorporating electronic technology into pedagogy because it: allows for the incorporation of the dynamics of electronic technology; allows for the conversions of multiple media; and allows for the analysis/instruction of that convergence to be treated as a whole.
          This article defines smooth and striated spaces, shows how I applied them to a Spring 2001 "Web Theory and Design" class to create a smoother educational environment, and discusses the results of an informal survey given to the students.

Definitions
Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari define cultural spaces in terms of smooth or striated. Cultural spaces are where culturally connected societies interact, societies that are made up of similar cultural constructs. Highly striated cultures have very strict class structures, hierarchies, and rules that cannot be broken without penalty of law. Smoother cultures are cultures that may have class structures, but are not enforced by law (i.e., self-imposed by society). This concept of smooth/striated can be, and has been, applied to hypertext.

Striated Rhetorical Spaces
Socially, striated space manifests itself in hierarchical and rule-intensive culture. Hierarchy, rules and boundaries characterize them. Deleuze and Guattari say that, "all progress is made by and in striated space, but all becoming occurs in smooth space" (486). Striated space has limits and can confine (Deleuze 489); translated to hypertext, striated spaces force a path for the reader and predetermine the experience for the reader. Deleuze and Guattari claim that smooth and striated spaces exist only in a mixture—the smooth space being interrupted by the striated and the striated space being reversed, thus becoming smoother (475). Therefore, this relationship exists on a continuum where the spaces that have fewer interruptions or striations are at the smooth end of the continuum and the spaces that are less often reversed are at the striated end of the continuum.
          Striated spaces are also characterized by long-distance vision in optical space (Deleuze 493). The long-distance vision requires static orientation, static distance from the object, and the establishment of central perspective (Boundas 166). This distance creates separation from the individual and object, relying on one sense organ to interpret the experience.
          Those hierarchies and boundaries in a socially striated space can also be seen in other spaces, namely text. Moulthrop discusses how smooth and striated space applies to technology and pedagogy and says that striated space is the domain of routine, specification, sequence, and causality (Moulthrop 302).
          Striated spaces in hypertext also predetermine paths for the reader. Deleuze and Guattari explain that "movement in [striated space] is confined as if by gravity to a horizontal plane, and limited by the order of that plane to preset paths between fixed and identifiable points" (viii).

Smooth Rhetorical Spaces
Smooth spaces are dynamic, and transformation is more important than essence. Deleuze and Guattari explain that, "one can rise up at any point and move to any other" (viii). So smooth spaces in hypertext allow the reader more freedom to choose paths.
          As said before, "all becoming occurs in smooth space" (Deleuze 486). In other words, momentary location is less important that one's continuous movement or line of flight. Deleuze and Guattari say that a totally smooth space does not exist. Smooth spaces are mediated by discontinuous striation, they are an occasion, a becoming.
          Smooth space envelopes one in the force of sensation. Deleuze and Guattari explain that sensation "has one face turned toward the subject [. . .] and another, turned toward the object [. . .] It is both things at once; it is the being-in-the-world of the phenomenologist: *I become* in sensation, and at the same time *something happens* because of it" (Boundas 20).
          The experience of sensation is what allows the individual to be more a part of the smooth space; whereas, striated spaces put boundaries around that experience, objectifying and lessening the experience of sensation.
          Smooth space is also characterized by close-range vision coupled with haptic (tactile) space (this can be visual or auditory as well) (Deleuze 492). The space cannot be distanced and objectively observed because sensation is too much a part of the space. One is too close to the object, and "its orientations, landmarks and linkages are in continuous variation" (Boundas 166).

Striated and Smooth Characteristics Overview

Striated Routine Hierarchical Rule-intensive Authoritarian Progress is made Limits and confines Long-distance vision and optical space Static orientation Distance from object

Smooth All becoming occurs Dynamic Transformation more important Continuous movement Discontinuities are becoming Sensation, sensation envelopes Close-range vision Haptic space Can't be distanced or objectified

It is important to remember that the smoothness and striation continuum is not an either/or continuum. There are degrees of smoothness and striation and they exist only in mixture. One is not better than the other for pedagogy or for the creation of text. For example: for a lower-level class, a smooth pedagogy might not be as effective because boundaries may be more important. Students may need to learn certain foundational knowledge before being able to experiment or explore. Progress might be more important than becoming. In another example: in a higher-level or graduate-level course, a smoother pedagogy might be more effective because becoming could be more effective—the foundational knowledge is there and the boundaries aren't as necessary. Students have the foundational knowledge of the field and are now able to experiment with boundaries and experiment with classroom experiences.

The Class
I taught a course called "Web Theory and Design" in Spring 2001 to mostly upper-level Technical and Scientific Communication majors. For this reason, I wanted to approach the class with a smoother pedagogy.

Student Background
The students were older, well into their major and had the foundational knowledge of the field, so "progress" wasn't as important. I wanted more "becoming." I wanted the students to get into their own projects, learn on their own, delve into the Web, the theory, the design, the software—and I felt a traditionally taught class would have put me in the way of their becoming. I wanted to step out of the way; I wanted the students to be transformed by their own work, their discoveries.
          Also, I had another problem. I had people in the class who had competent and advanced levels of experience with coding and many software applications and some people who had little computer experience at all. I was faced with the problem of creating a syllabus that would accommodate all levels of experience. The following is what I did in order to create a smoother pedagogy and solve the problem of multiple levels of experience.

Syllabus Design
Students individually set their own goals and project descriptions, then discussed those, as well as grading criteria for projects, with me. At the beginning of the course, we discussed the texts and what we would be discussing and doing in class, then the students worked on setting their goals for the course.
          I talked to each student individually so that they did not attempt more than they could accomplish. I guided each student in setting his/her own goals by asking questions about what their career interests were, what he/she wanted to get out of the course, and how he/she saw the course fitting into their academic and future career goals. Their goals could be abstract, for example: learning audience analysis or learning what makes an effective Web site. Or their goals could be specific: learning Dreamweaver or how to make a document plan. I said I wouldn't teach software; they would have to learn those on their own and incorporate them into their own projects. Almost everyone wanted to learn a new technology, but class time would focus on design principles such as Web usability and client analysis, document plans, and audience analysis.
          After goal setting, students designed their first project. Then we worked individually to negotiate criteria. These projects could be an analysis of a Web site, it could be a research project of a topic, a storyboard and a document plan of a Web site, or it could be an electronic creation. It could be anything they wanted it to be. If it was an electronic creation, they also had to turn in a memorandum describing the process that they went through in creating this electronic document. I told the students that after they started the first project they would then have to set the rest of the projects for the rest of the semester. Then, throughout the semester the students could change their goals if they changed or refocused in any way. We had a document that I put on the Web that had everyone's goals, project descriptions, and criteria listed, and I reflected any of those changes with a different color of text because I wanted the students to see how their goals and projects changed over the course of the semester. After their projects and criteria were set, I had a printed copy they signed; we were entering a contract and I would grade them based on the criteria that we negotiated and they would be evaluated by these criteria.
          At the end of the semester, the students completed a Goals Evaluation so I could get some feedback on if they thought they accomplished their goals for the semester, would use the knowledge and skills gained from the course, and liked the structure of the course. From this informal survey I was able to gather some feedback regarding how the students responded to a smoother approach to the course structure. So did I accomplish a smoother pedagogy?

The Pedagogical Reality
If we go back to the definition of smooth, we see transformation, becoming, and continuous movement as part of that definition, and we can see those aspects of the definition in the allowance for setting and changing of goals and projects throughout the semester. Students were able to focus, refocus, or narrow their goals or projects as they saw that something was more pertinent to what they were doing; they didn't have the boundaries to keep them from transformation. They were allowed continuous movement.
          Another aspect of smoothness is that it is not rule-bound and authoritarian and I think to some extent, I tried to do this. I allowed them to create a syllabus. It is always somewhat authoritarian because I will ultimately be the teacher and I will ultimately be giving a grade. But by empowering the students to enter into a contract, to own the creation of a project, to feel empowered by coming up with projects by negotiating individually with me on criteria and changing that criteria, being allowed to discuss with me if they want to change the criteria—and that does not mean that I was always willing to change that criteria—I feel that there was more smoothness than in many of the other courses I teach.
          Another aspect of smoothness is that it is not routine. I do feel that this is unique and different from the ordinary. In many other types of courses, students are given projects and assignments and they are told what they will do. Many of the students liked the uniqueness of creating a syllabus and they liked the idea that they could create and have that freedom. There are some students that do not like this lack of structure, or what they see as a lack of structure. They like the routine, and so there are those students who I felt I needed to work with a bit more. Just as Deleuze and Guattari say there is no totally smooth space, there were rules in this course (striation). For example: there were criteria and there were grades; however, the smoothness was that the student and I set the criteria together.
          Close-range vision is another aspect of smoothness. Part of the smoothness is that one is not able to get away from the object to distance oneself, and I think I got them closer to the object, closer to their discontinuity, to their failures, because they were invested in them. They created the projects, the goals, and the criteria. Many times, I had to warn them about doing too much. And, still, I found many students spent more hours than the course required working on their projects because they were invested. Their vision was close range because the projects were their creations.

I do think I created a classroom with a smoother pedagogy, and I believe the majority of students responded favorably.

Informal Survey

Goals Evaluation In an email message to me, please answer the following questions. You can either copy each question into the email message followed by the answer or copy and paste the entire document into a new document, then send it as an attachment. You will need to look at the Project Descriptions on class materials for your Goals. You are starting your last project for class. Looking at your goals you created at the beginning of class, do you think you have accomplished the majority of them? If you have not accomplished some of them, which ones have you not accomplished? Will you be able to accomplish them with the Final Project? Why or Why not? Have your goals changed over the semester? Were they reflected in the Project Description (the text should be a different color)? If they were not reflected in the Project Description, specifically how have they changed and why? Do you think the goals you set were challenging enough for you, too challenging, or appropriate? Please explain. Do you think the projects you designed were challenging enough for you, too challenging, or appropriate? Please explain. Do you think the goals you set and projects you've done will help you with your career? Please explain. In what specific ways will you continue to further this knowledge after you graduate?