Digitized Lives: Part 3

At the end of his book, Reed really wraps up everything with an extremely important point: technology does not control us, we control it. The future is not some sort of risky, unknown, unpredictable thing. It is completely controlled by us and the choices we make now. We have all the power.

This means that the biggest problem we face is not how to respond to the future, it is how to think critically about not just what we can do, but what we should do. Based on our problem solving skills alone, humans can do just about anything. But rarely do we stop and think about whether or not we should. We can create nuclear weapons that can destroy the entire planet if one man gets mad enough. But should we create these kinds of weapons and put the trigger in the hands of a fallible, corruptible human?

One of the most interesting thoughts that Reed shares during this section is how technology moves rapidly from strange and new to commonplace and everyday. When TVs were invented, they were huge, limited, space-eating devices. Now, if you go into someone's house and they don't have a TV, they are considered strange. Most homes even have more than one TV. When I lived with my parents, we had four TVs: one in the living room, and one in each of our three bedrooms. That is one TV per person, which would have been considered extremely excessive back when TVs originally were introduced into the home, but are now considered the norm. Same goes for computers, cell phones, etc. These technologies are wonderful and we use each of them daily. I do 90% of my homework on my computer, I couldn't survive without it. But is that healthy? Is having each of these technologies so interwoven into our daily lives worth it in the long run? Or does it hurt us?

Reed introduces the idea that we are in total control by talking about artificial intelligence (AI). When we think of AI, we think of movies like 2000: A Space Odyssey where the computer H.A.L. starts to think for itself and take over, only to result in it's own death: "my mind is going. I can feel it." We invent these extremely capable technologies and then fear them because perhaps we programmed them a little too well. But therein lies the problem. We programmed them. We programmed them to be like us. We chose to design them like us. I had never considered the fact that this programming was a conscious choice until Reed brought up the idea that it may have been smarter to consciously program AI to be different from humans in major was so that we could distinguish them from us. Instead, we are left wondering whether or not H.A.L. can really feel his mind going, whether or not H.A.L. is really alive.

At the end of it all, T.V. Reed is absolutely correct: the future is in our hands in every way. We can choose to pursue technology with reckless abandon and craft an unpredictable and potentially terrifying future, or we can pause and take a moment to think critically about where technology is going, and whether or not that is the direction we want to take it. We still have the choice. And pretending that we don't is foolish.

Digitized Lives: Part 2

In chapter 4, Reed focuses on gender and racial inequalities and how they make themselves known on the internet. Early on in the chapter, he poses an important question; "if we are truly in a post-racial, post-sexist era, why would one want to disguise one's race or gender?" Although anonymity has it's benefits, such as preventing bias, it's very existence should be questioned. True equality would have no need for anonymity, because no one's thoughts/opinions/etc. would be considered less than someone else's. The idea that minority groups must disguise certain aspects of themselves in order to be accepted as an equal was not created by the existence of the internet. One of the reasons that J.K. Rowling published under her initials is because her gender could not be determined based on initials, and she was more likely to get published if people thought she was a man.

A lot of this chapter reminded me of our class discussions about Gamergate, and how many members of the gaming community are actively supporting gender inequality. What is particularly remarkable about this is the fact that Gamergate is trying to pass itself off as a group in support of proper gaming journalism and critique, and many people believe that, because why would a bunch of heteronormative, white, middle class males lie?

I like Reed's point about how nobody woke up one day and decided to embed all of these inequalities into the internet/computer. It wasn't a consciously racist or sexist choice, it was an unconscious recreation of a society with existing systematic inequalities. Most people support or promote inequalities subconsciously, because our society just enables us to. "Going with the flow" is the path of least resistance, and we will always choose the path of least resistance because it's easier. It's just a shame that that path happens to be a dark one.

These inequalities are designed to perpetuate themselves, and if we don't actively try to change them, then they will never change.

Digitized Lives: Part 1

I was delightfully surprised to learn that T.V. Reed is a professor at WSU. It's nice to be able to read books written by those at my university. I found Reed's thoughts in Chapter 3 to be the most interesting, this idea that people are able to transform into someone else entirely on the internet. This opens the door for manipulation, deceit, theft. With all of these apps, Photoshopping abilities, and computer hacking, it is no problem for even the least tech savvy individual to create a false identity online. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that it's not only the digital liars and manipulators that fake their identities online. I do it too, albeit, in less intentional ways.

LinkedIn, for example, is where I put on my best face. All of my job experiences, my education, my certificates, all of my talents and abilities are put here. To anyone who doesn't know me outside of this page, I am a talented DTC major, graduating in December 2015, with a variety of job experiences, ready to join a workforce. I look smart, focused, hardworking, pleasant, and like a fantastic future employee. None of my flaws, faults, or failures appear on this page. Facebook is where I put the most interesting me: every cool place I go to, all the cool friends I have, all the most exciting photos of myself, they all go here. Everyone puts different versions of themselves in different places on the web.

We hear tons of stories about someone who met another person on a dating website, but when they set up a non-digital meeting, they found out that this other person was actually nothing like who they said they were online. There are even reality television shows about introducing two people who lied to each other online. People play games like The Sims to create a new identity for themselves, to live the life they've always wanted or to just try out living a different way for fun. We love creating false identities, while we also struggle to keep our real identities. Identity theft is a huge problem in our country, particularly with the digitization of so much of our lives. Someone gets ahold of your credit card number, or your social security number, and they can ruin your credit score, your reputation, your whole life.

So much depends on our identity, and yet we are so eager to make up a false one.

Grown Up Digital: Part 3

In my previous blog post, I talked about Tapscott's view on the education system, and contrasted it with my own viewpoint. For this post, I will be talking about the American political system, and my personal experiences with it.

Let me start by saying that I agree with everything Tapscott said about the Net Generation and democracy. He has some powerful opinions that go against the mainstream idea that the Net Generation is also the Me Generation, and I appreciate that optimistic viewpoint. If you truly believe that an entire generation is self centered, then you should be trying to change them, not tell them that they are wrong. Also, I believe that the Net Gen is much less self centered than the previous generation. The previous generation has pursued the American dream with extreme vigor, and most have succeeded at attaining it. The Net Gen seems to be more interested in leveling the playing field, helping others obtain not the American dream necessarily, but the dream of equal rights and opportunities. So, in summary, I appreciate Tapscott's take on the Net Geners.

I do not read big newspapers (I occasionally read the Daily Evergreen or the Argonaut, when I have the opportunity), I do not watch cable news, I do not visit news websites. I get political information from Facebook, Buzzfeed, Tumblr, etc. I glean what I need to know from what people are posting, sharing, talking about, on social media outlets. Therefore, traditional political campaigns do not reach me at all. In the 2012 elections, I learned a lot about Obama, and next to nothing about Romney, except that he is Mormon. Tapscott was completely correct in his analysis of Obama's success: he targeted young voters and reached out to them in a way that made them feel of value. Obama has a Facebook page, Twitter account, and a Tumblr, which actively responded to inquiries and comments made by Tumblr users. Net Geners respond to interaction and honesty, not lies and manipulation.

I remember watching TV with my parents in high school and seeing a lot of attack ads, particularly against local folks, or against Obama on Fox News. I still see them when I visit my folks (they have cable, I don't), although I see them less frequently than I used to. I absolutely hate attack ads. It reminds me of how a little kid, when at risk of getting in trouble, will point at someone else and say "but he did..." It's childish, and there is no integrity in that. Every time I see an attack ad, it makes me much less likely to vote for the person who sponsored it. I want an honest politician, even though I don't think that they exist. Tapscott was also correct in saying that Net Geners distrust the traditional political system. They don't trust politicians who are all about money, which we believe is all of them. The more honest a politician is, particularly in acknowledging their flaws, struggles, or desire for some sort of personal privacy, the more likely they are to gain votes from Net Geners.

Occupy Wall Street is an excellent example of how Net Geners have used technology to make a difference. People around the country flocked to Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites to organize a civilian led political stand against the wealthy political leaders of Wall Street. It's interesting for me to dwell on all of these ideas, because, although I would vote for Obama and support OWS now, when all of these things were at their peak, I was a very conservative Republican who would rather die than lose capitalism. Interesting how things change when one grows up and learns to think for themselves. The internet, particularly the social communities on the internet, have played an exceptionally large part in developing my political, social, economical, and personal beliefs and opinions.

Grown Up Digital: Part 2

Tapscott spent most of this section of the book talking about how to change the way education and company's work to better accommodate the Net Generation, which is a peculiar way to go about things. He says that education is still stuck in the industrial age, and that it is inhibiting students from learning; that we need to change the education system ASAP to be able to teach students the things they need to know. I both agree and disagree. I believe that the education system is lagging behind and isn't helping students learn as well as it could. For the most part, I believe that is because the teacher to student ratio is ridiculous, and that students are not receiving enough face time in the classroom with their teachers, and at home with their parents. Technology is great, and it is a great boon to education. But this generation of students wants to learn hands on, not from lectures or watching videos. We want to experience things. If you want us to learn, then show us, and let us try it over and over again until we remember how to do it.

I disagree with Tapscott's analysis in that the education system is responding too slowly. It is responding as quickly as it is able. Teaching is a very conservative profession, and many current teachers are comfortable in their ways and are happy to keep trucking along. This does not make them bad teachers, it makes them challenging to learn from. My girlfriend is about to graduate and become a student teacher. She has stories upon stories about all the new technologies that she is learning about, the new ways of teaching, the concept of lifelong learning (which her personal pedagogy is based around), and how to create a student focused classroom with minimal lecture, and maximum collaboration and discussion. The way my girlfriend is going to teach her students is much different than the ways I was taught in the classroom. This is a sign of progress within the education system. It must start with the new teachers, while they are in college, and it will trickle down to the students as soon as the previous generation of teachers is settling into retirement. And so on and so forth with each upcoming generation. Tapscott was wrong in saying that it is taking too long, it is happening, the new teachers are up to date and ready to teach, they just need to be given positions.

In high school, I learned via discussion and actually doing things. I cannot remember ever being lectured for a whole class period. And now that I am in college, most of my classes are purely lectures. Only one or two actually mix it up and do something different, and only one of my classes is a non-lecture based class. To shift from constant discussion and computer based learning to lectures and note taking was a bit of a shock, and to be honest, I am bored through most of my classes. I retain information for tests, and then I promptly forget it because it has not proven worthy of remembering, it has no place in my future, and does not help me advance myself to be a desirable employee. Colleges are definitely falling behind in that regard. There has to be a better way to do education, especially since I am majoring in Digital Technology. My classes shouldn't be about books, philosophy, and ideas. It should be about learning how to create digital media, interact with technology, and change the way our culture works.

Grown Up Digital: Part 1

It is very interesting to read a book that analyzes you specifically. Having grown up with the internet, it is impossible to not notice the differences between my generation and my parents, particularly when my parents generation is writing pages and pages of thoughts on how horrible my generation is. Although it is particularly telling that they write this all on the internet, which they so happily blame for my generation's stupidity.

Tapscott opens up his book describing many of the differences between what he calls the "Net Gen" and the previous generation, Generation X. He points out that while Generation X watched TV, read the paper, and listened to the radio with passive acceptance of the choices that the producers and editors had made, Net Geners tend to challenge things, make our own path, and stray from the expected. Some look at this as a bad thing, that we have no respect for our elders and dispute everything that we can dispute. However, I think it is a sign of a healthy future. My generation refuses to accept the status quo, we are determined to change things for the better and challenge information until we find the truth. We no longer tolerate social injustice, as can be seen by Tapscott's story about his daughter refusing to buy roses that had been sprayed with chemicals and then picked by children. We are rising up and ready to make a change. We are content creators, world changers, leadership challengers, and ready to fight racism, homophobia, abuse of any kind, and bring everyone onto an equal playing field.

The author calls the Net Generation the "first global generation," which is an odd way to think about people my age. Yes, we are all connected to people around the world, and are aware of news on a global scale. But because it has always been this way, it's strange to think about a world in which it wasn't.

Technology moves so fast, that although this book was published in 2009, it is extremely dated. The way the author mentions BlackBerry as a popular device is telling of how behind the times this book is. I am tempted to document every part of this book that is already out of date and therefore irrelevant. It's crazy how fast technology moves now versus how quickly it moved when my parents were my age. Innovation has hit light speed and isn't looking to slow down anytime soon.

Tapscott introduced this idea of the eight norms of my generation:

1. Freedom: we want to make our own decisions and control our own lives.
2. Customization: we want things to become one with us, to become our own creation and work how we want to it work. Not to just work, but to work for us.
3. Scrutiny: we believe that everyone lies and we trust nothing until we've analyzed and challenged it thoroughly.
4. Integrity: we advocate for honesty and fight inequality. Social justice, diversity, in with the good, out with the bad.
5. Collaboration: we want to work together, talk together, think together. We value community and the sharing of knowledge.
6. Entertainment: work should be fun, we should enjoy life, since we only get to do it once.
7. Speed: faster is better, we have a lot to do in this short life.
8. Innovation: constantly improving, constantly making things work better.

I believe that all of those are accurate depictions of my generation.

A Better Pencil

Plato believes that "writing can never be as real as speech." As someone who expresses themselves better in writing than verbally, I would have to disagree with Plato. Although writing is not as direct as speech, I do believe that it is just as real, depending on who is doing the writing. For example, if I am texting someone and trying to work out evening plans, I will eventually give up and call them because it is easier and more efficient to speak to each other rather than write everything out. However, if I am in a fight with my girlfriend and want to explain how I feel in a non-angry or emotionally charged way, I often write it all down in a letter and give that to her. Writing is both as real, and not as real as speech. Much like speech is both as real and not as real as writing. It is interesting to note the major shift that has occurred, from trusting orality explicitly, to trusting writing explicitly. We used to trust someone's word, that when we looked them in the eye, and shook hands on a deal, that they would follow through, because guilt weighs much. Nowadays, we would much rather have something in writing, to legally document that an event occurred. This shift seems connected to the idea that everybody lies, and we can't trust word of mouth. With all the technology around us, it is even more difficult to tell the difference between a truth and a lie. With photoshop, internet magicians, CGI, etc... etc... it's no wonder that we have difficult trusting anything. However, it is easier to have things in writing/digitally, because if, later, we find out it was faked or a lie, we have evidence to support our innocence, and can pursue legal justice.

In chapter 3, the author talks about Henry David Thoreau, pencils, and a distaste for technology. It seems that when a new technology arrives, people often look at it with either fear or distaste, because it is new, and they will have to learn it. We are nostalgic beings, and thus equate what is best with what is easiest. For example, when I have a particularly tough week at school, I find myself longing to be back in high school, where things were easier, everything was straightforward, and little was expected of me. My parents grew up with pencils and pens and wrote everything down. So they may look upon computers with distaste, because it is difficult to learn, and when they think about times in their life that were easy, carefree, and fun, they think about their childhood, when they used pens and pencils. They are comparing two distinct times, one which has been glorified in their minds, and one which has been horrified in their minds. It's difficult to compare two things when one's imagination has already played tricks on what they both are. This idea is reiterated in chapter 7, where the author says that "texts generated by new technologies are often greeted with mistrust by readers preferring the old, tried-and-true to the newfangled" ones. We rely on what we know to work, and prefer to stick to what we know to be safe. I do believe that this concept is fading, however. Since I was born, computers have gone from large bulky things to Google Glass. I have been raised with so much technology that I am accustomed to changing out my devices every few years and can quickly pick up on new technologies with ease.

I am a big fan of the phrase "word technologies" that was introduced on page 71. It makes a lot of sense to me. The author talked a little bit about how all word technologies fail at crucial points: the pencil breaks, the typewriter jams, the computer freezes. However, one could say that speech is the one word technology that doesn't fail. Most people will never experience a failure of the tongue, more likely a failure of the mind, which feeds the tongue. But the tool that we use to speak will not suddenly stop working like we want it to. An interesting concept that reminds me of Orality and Literacy: at the end of time, when technology is dead, pencils are gone, and paper is scarce, we will still be speaking to each other.

Should everyone be writing? My teacher friends would argue that yes, everyone should be writing. And I agree. Writing is an excellent outlet for one's thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. However, writing is also a way of garnering attention, destroying others through online bullying and anonymous comments, and creating a fictionalized universe that is not healthy to live in. I think that everyone should be writing, but it is important to self edit, and only share that which is worth sharing.

Things Fall Apart: Part 2

Upon completion of the story, I found myself rather infuriated at the arrogance of the Christian missionaries. They took the Igbo people as primitive merely because their culture was different and they weren't literate. It's interesting to be able to compare and contrast the missionaries and the Igbo people. The missionaries were constantly plotting and planning, using their words to convert people and create problems. Whereas the Igbo people were honest, consistently trying to hold onto their culture and traditions without creating a war. They used few words to convey their positions. If we accredit these differences entirely to orality versus literacy, it's pretty clear that orality does have some advantages over literacy, and vice versa.

It becomes very clear, particularly in the last half of the book, that Okonkwo values violence above all else, because it is the very definition of a real man. It is evident in the lack of respect he has for his mother's village because they do not attack the missionaries. It is evident in the anger he feels towards his own village when they too, do not pursue the missionaries and kill them all after he slays one of them. And it is especially evident in his death. He violently hanged himself, committing suicide, rather than going to court and being hanged by the white men.

The biggest turning point in the story, where Okonkwo accidentally kills a clansman, is also one of the easiest parts to skip over: "Guns fired the last salute and the cannon rent the sky. And then from the centre of the delirious fury came a cry of agony and shouts of horror. It was as if a spell had been cast. All was silent. In the centre of the crowd a boy lay in a pool of blood. It was the dead man's sixteen-year-old son, who with his brothers and half-brothers had been dancing the traditional farewell to their father. Okonkwo's gun had exploded and a piece of iron had pierced the boy's heart." It starts with the death and ends with Okonkwo's blame. Half a paragraph at most. I found it curious that such an important moment in the story was told with such brevity. Immediately after that, Okonkwo and his family leave the village and life is forever different. I nearly skimmed over it, because I was so enamored in the story. I had to read it twice before the idea really settled in. Okonkwo had to leave because he accidentally murdered a clansman, and lost everything, even though there was no intention behind it. I found that unfair, but I appreciated the understanding of everyone in the village, that everyone just knew that it had to happen that way, but that no one felt good about it. The complete understanding of this culture is mind boggling. There is no need for a king, because they all work together, they all understand the importance of obeying the gods and following the rules. No one quarrels with the rules. No one searches for loopholes, they just obey and are respected.

Things Fall Apart: Part 1

I found myself deeply interested in the story that Achebe is telling here. The difference in culture is the greatest draw for me, because I am completely relying on the words within the story to formulate an image in my mind of what is happening. I agree with some others in the class, however, that it is difficult to keep the names of the characters sorted correctly when I am unsure of how to pronounce them in the first place. Although I greatly appreciate that names have so much importance, and that each character's name means something that was either defined by their life, or will define their life. Many of my friends have their names merely because their parents just liked the way it sounds, and not because it has any sort of important meaning.

As I read, I tried to keep the concepts from Orality and Literacy in the back of my mind, and recognize them when I came across them in Achebe. The Ibo (or Igbo) culture that Achebe writes about greatly values language and orality. Achebe writes, "among the Ibo the art of conversation is regarded very highly, and proverbs are the palm-oil with which words are eaten" (p6). As we read, we learn that this culture highly values proverbs as a way to dictate life, and use story telling/narrative as a primary method of communicating life lessons. Parents don't just tell their children not to do things because they are bad, they tell stories about animals or insects who have done these things and what happened to them. At several points in the story, women are mentioned telling stories to their children around a fire, and children even telling stories to other children.

In America, we sit around on our couch or next to our children's beds and read them stories from books. Oral stories are passed down generation to generation, each person learning the stories so that they might share the same lessons with their children. Although we occasionally pass down the books that our parents read to us to our own children, with such a high frequency of new stories being written, it is unnecessary to pass down stories in order for our children to learn the same lessons that we learned as kids. I found it particularly interesting that in oral cultures, stories are a necessity to life. Narrative matters. Whereas in American culture (at least in regard to my own family), stories are told for entertainment value more than anything else.

Because of Orality and Literacy, I was looking for interesting aspects of the narrative that I could analyze as a development of literacy. The way in which Achebe tells his story makes for a lack of building action to climax, but it does give a lot of background information. Each chapter begins in the past, with a separate event, and then as the story gets filled in, it slowly connects to the present in which the story is being told. Little by little, a lot of information is gleaned about Okonkwo and why the present story matters. It is an interesting way to tell a story, and I noticed that many of my favorite books are told that way. For example, I am presently re-reading Alison Bechdel's "Fun Home," which is a graphic memoir, and each chapter beings in a similar fashion.

Orality and Literacy: Part 2

In chapter 6, Ong starts to talk about how literacy has shifted the way we express narratives, not just in that we write down narratives instead of strictly speaking them, but in the most basic format we use to describe narratives: The plot.

He talked about how unusual it is that we document things linearly, typically in a chronological fashion. To me, that seems like the best way to do it. I thought it was interesting how Ong keeps pointing us back to the roots of our literacy: orality. In oral cultures, you say things as you remember them. Sometimes orderly, other times not. Often you start in the middle and explain as you go.

Ong mentions "Freytag's pyramid" (p 139) as the most basic way that we conceptualize a plot. I was taught about Freytag's pyramid in middle school. You use it to analyze a story, break it down into its parts, and learn how to tell your own story. I remember sitting down in high school with a drawn out pyramid (building, climax, falling), and trying to write a story that includes all of the elements needed to fulfill the pyramid. The other day, I tried to tell a made up story just off the cuff, without writing any part of it down. I didn't get very far before giving up.

In our culture, narrative without a written plot is relatively non-existent. Everyone writes things down. Especially if you are telling some sort of story, conveying a message, or sharing knowledge. I find myself often taking notes when I am having casual conversations with friends, because I do not want to forget what they say. A reliance on writing may be the downfall of all memory. Because we are really not required to remember anything beyond the scope of a few moments, how long do literate cultures have until our long term memories fade completely?

One of the most memorable things that Ong mentioned was this idea that "you do not find climactic linear plots ready-formed in people's lives, although real lives may provide material out of which such a plot may be constructed by ruthless elimination of all but a few carefully highlighted incidents. The full story of all the events in Othello's whole life would be a complete bore" (p 140). It struck me that when you read about someone's life, you typically don't read about everything that ever happened to them. You read about the most interesting parts, otherwise you would be completely bored. It never really dawned on me until reading that that narrative is somewhat fictional. All narrative selects interesting aspects or events, and then only tells about those. This gives the reader an imperfect view of the characters and the events that are happening. Like watching a movie through a straw, you only see a small portion of the bigger picture, a small portion of the truth.

The most interesting idea that I am taking away from this book, is that literacy has changed everything about culture. Nothing has gone untouched by literacy, everything has shifted since writing was introduced to orality. The way we think, the way we talk, the way we tell stories. All has changed. I had never really thought about how much in our culture is credited to our ability to write things down. I used to look at oral cultures as if they were missing out, like they have simply not evolved into what they are destined to be yet. But that is putting the cart before the horse, for everything that we accredit to literacy, must be first credited to orality. Without the ability to speak, we would not have the ability to write, and therefore to create and live like we do.

Orality and Literacy: Part 1

To be completely honest, I found Orality and Literacy to be quite dense and difficult to read. I read the first chapter twice, so I could understand it, and it wasn’t until the second time around that I started developing an interest in what the author was writing about. The author brought up several points in the first chapter alone that I had never considered before. For example, because we live in a literate culture, when someone is speaking to me, I process what they are saying as formed letters in my mind. Literacy has permeated the way we think, speak, interact with others, and live.

                

Ong writes about how orality is independent of the written, but the written is entirely dependent on the oral. An interesting concept when we realize that we think of primarily oral cultures as primitive. In America particularly, I think, we associate this idea of intelligence with the ability to write. We refuse to hand out certificates of competence (GED/equivalent) without one being able to read and write at a certain level. But what if someone who fails to achieve literacy would have thrived in a primarily oral culture? There are thousands of adults in the United States that we consider to be illiterate because they cannot read or write. Thousands. If literacy is so closely tied to intelligence, or someone’s ability to survive or thrive in this world, then why do we still have so many who have not developed the ability to read and write?

                

That also brings up a good point: reading and writing, in its most basic form, is a developed ability. Speech, in its highest forms, is also a developed ability, but the lowest level of speech (making verbal sounds) is not a developed ability, it is a natural ability. One could argue that babies are born with the inherent ability to “speak”, albeit in their own language of crying and cooing. Humans have since developed these noises into a system of carefully placed sounds to create a complex verbal language. In many “non-primitive” cultures, we have then developed our languages into the written form. I believe one could argue that the same pace of development has also occurred within primarily oral cultures as well, but rather than develop written versions of their language, they are developing exceptional memories, better listening ability, and a more complex oral language. So “primitive”, in the common sense that we use to describe lesser-things as primitive, may be the wrong phrasing.

                

I find it particularly interesting that we are learning about how important orality is to literacy, and yet I never would have known any of this information, or have come to any of these conclusions had it not been for the literature that we have been assigned in this class. It brings to mind the complex connections that exist between literacy and orality, and the dependency that we have on both of them to have a successfully functioning society in America and other literate cultures.