Knievel, Michael. “What is Humanistic about Computers and Writing? Historical Patterns and Contemporary Possibilities for the Field.” Computers and Composition 26.1: 2009, 92-106.
In this article, Knievel takes a historical look at how the field of humanities has negotiated the relationship between computers and writing over the past 35 years, beginning with Ellen W. Nold’s article “Fear and Trembling: The Humanist Approaches the Computer” in 1975. Kneiveal uses this historical overview to answer the question “of what, precisely is humanistic about computers and writing” (92). He claims that this is the question that has fueled the need for computers and writing as a sub-field within the discipline of composition and rhetoric. The shifting nature of “English studies and English-studies-in–society” requires that we develop an understanding of how computers and writing belong in the overarching category of humanities.
Knievel defines computers and writing as a scholarly sub-field that “emphasizes scholarly inquiry into the impact of networked computer technologies on reading and composing (broadly construed, including print and multimedia text in stand-alone and networked environments) as well as the role of such technologies in writing and the teaching of related composing practices” (94). He goes further to state that computers and composition focuses on the “social, cultural, political, and rhetorical consequences of composing and disseminating text in such spaces” (94).
Knievel goes on to define humanities and illustrates the field’s traditional reliance on literature that is fragmented from the “hard sciences and technology.” The purpose of humanities is to derive meaning “through religion, history, literature, philosophy, communities, and ethics” (94). Knievel outlines a literature-basic rubric for understanding the humanities and then applies it to the shifting views of computers and writing over the years. The rubric is based on “consumption (the act of consuming or receiving text, primarily belletristic for the purpose of enlightenment and edification; textual and cultural permanence (notions of the stable canon, stable means of valuing text, and the stability of print as a medium; ethics, and authorship” (95).
In the first phase of the humanistic approach to computers and writing (1975-1992), Knievel depicts the approach as being one of “Fear and Loathing” toward the use of technology, specifically computers, as part of the humanities. There was suspicion about the function and use of computers, and a fear of the denigration of the written word. In phase two (1990-2000), Knievel frames the approach as “moving the social turn online” (97). Electronic writing becomes more humanistic because of the networking capabilities provided by online writing spaces. At this time, theories about the possibilities of hypertext were abundant, and Bolter made his landmark conclusions about writing spaces and the remediation of print. Technology is seen as a useful tool to connect individuals, but it also must be evaluated and critiqued in a “cultural, rhetorical, and political space” (99).
In the final phase (2000-present), there is a understood dichotomy between computers and the humanities because digital technology has become such a part of our daily lives. As such there is an “interest in critically engaging multimedia and multimodal texts and online identity/subjectivity, as well as attention to civic participation as conditioned by ongoing changes in electronic media” (99). There is now a understanding of how electronic writing is shifting our perceptions of literacy and the how the field of humanities fits into this paradigm shift. Technological literacy is now as important as traditional print literacy, and it is the humanist’s responsibility to integrate electronic literacy into their pedagogical practices. Knievel states, “Successful participation in civil society and the workplace, then, seems to require a fusion of literacies to develop in students a technologized rhetorical agility, rendering them capable of both consuming and producing text in an era characterized by shifting notions of text and evolving media forms” (100).
Of importance is Knieval’s emphasis on the unique point we have arrived at in the study of computers and writing. The sub-field has earned its rightful place in the humanities, specifically housed in English departments. Electronic writing spaces have now taken their place alongside the pen and paper and all the technologies that have preceded them. Texts can now take on electronic forms though the nature and purpose of these texts may remain the same. Further, “expanded definitions of ‘text’ in a multimedia age have consequence for textual and media authority, meaning changes to the role of print in literate practice” (102). It is a natural progression that humanities should incorporate the writing spaces and forms of the times. No longer can the humanities privilege the printed text over electronic forms of writing and digital communication.
This a valuable article for me in that it provides a solid historical synopsis of the evolution of the field of computers and writing. As I take my place in the field of composition and writing, I am a relatively new scholar doing my work in the third phase. It is useful for me to understand the attitudes and issues that came before as scholars have attempted to answers question, “What is Humanistic about Computers and Writing?” As a result of asking and attempting to answer this question, the field has steadily come into its own. It is also valuable that Knievel’s article is current, bringing us to 2009, and properly framing the approach to computers and writing in the present day. It is interesting that he actually uses the idea of the “expanded definitions of ‘text’” just as I have used the concept of multimedia texts as an extension of the writing process. Reading the end of this article makes me feel certain that I am pursuing a current and vibrant area within the field of composition and rhetoric as a whole.
Be First to Comment