Writing is a Technology Too
Ong claims that writing is a technology that restructures thought. Throughout the semester, we’ve encountered readings that make the claim that something (the eraser, handwriting, etc.) is a technology. What does it mean to call something a technology? Discuss Ong’s landmark article with this question in mind. Your response should be about 600 words and submitted sometime on Monday 3/16.
After reading Ong’s article, I think a technology is really anything unnatural to humans that is created. Although Ong argues that writing is a technology because it separates data from interpretation, so it speaking in itself. There is still a separation of thoughts and expression. It is also not completely natural. One point that Ong brings up that I thought was really interesting was, “Technologies are artificial, but-paradox again-artificiality is natural to human beings” (24). Ong argues that there is a breakdown between thoughts and expression with technologies, but that is normal.
Ong uses the example of musical instruments as technologies and forms of communication that feels so natural to us. I had never thought about that before, but it makes so much sense. A technology is about communication and that includes music. In seeing writing as a technology, we are also able to see what types of technologies may change the way we communicate in the future. Ong gives numerous examples on how writing has shaped history. Writing’s different connotations and its own pitfalls creates a breakdown in thought, expression, and comprehension between people. I think the most striking point Ong makes is how writing is all about separation. He says writing can separate societies in ways oral language cannot. I don’t know if I agree with Ong. There is definitely a high oral language construction that can be alienating. With writing, people can see the text and decipher it with other words and at their own pace. I can see Ong’s point about “distancing” thoughts from this concept, but it does seem extreme. Just because technologies change the way we communicate, does not mean that oral language is the only way humans can interact and communicate. I think a technology can be anything that enhances or changes the way we communicate, and not just orally. When we watch tv or theater, it is not exclusively about the words. I think a technology is beyond oral vs. written. A technology is an advancement of communication. In our time, technology has been a word reserved for computers and communication. However, if we consider a pencil or writing a technology, so is empathy and non-verbal communication. We still have to have a code that determines what we think when someone shrugs their shoulders or grips at their neck. That code is no different than writing or a letter in the alphabet. It can cross social or cultural boundaries, or be limiting. Ong writes about writing as a technology to make us think about what a technology is and how it affects everyone in every way. Every technology separates thought from action, but that is communication. Communication is never completely accurate, even oral language. Someone may explain something a hundred different ways, but the receiver may never understand. Writing should not have to take the blame for this breakdown in communication. Language can function in the exact same way.
I would say anything that changes how we normally do something would be considered a technology. Writing is a technology, because it changed how we think – our thinking processes are different now from Socrates’. Because we have writing, we don’t have a strong oral tradition anymore – at least not in the U.S. We used to have stories passed down orally; we were dependent on alliteration and rhythm to help us remember, but now, it seems they are added as embellishments. I feel as if the purpose of our writing has changed as a whole. We write to convey a point. Brief emails, tweets and tweets limited to 120-160 characters or less, our thoughts jotted down on Post-It notes as if our ideas were meant to be written as side notes in a margin. Socrates was right in a way. Our minds have turned into a soft Jell-o like mold, unable to retain its proper shape.
Ong says that writing is a technology because it calls “for the use of tools and other equipment” (22). I don’t know if this can be considered a prerequisite for all technology, but when I think about it- it stands true for most, if not all, pieces of machinery today. Even if you did find something that didn’t need other tools or equipment, I would still argue that it can still be considered a technology because it is being used by a thing or someone. When a person operates technology, I consider that person to be part of the “other equipment” Ong refers to.
It also seems that Ong thinks technology is artificial. He calls writing “artificial” (23). I thought this was odd, because I always thought writing was a natural habit, much like speaking. I wonder why he thinks speaking is “natural.” He argues that we learn how to write, and it differs from speech because not everyone learns how to write. But isn’t language something taught? When babies are born, they do not speak – but they are learning how to speak by mimicry; isn’t that what children do now when they first pick up a crayon and scrawl on the floor? And I’m sure not all babies learn to speak. Aren’t there cultures that do not speak at all, but rather use grunting or motioning to get their point across? I wonder what Ong would think in terms of deaf people…
Ong also argues that technology is natural to humans, even though it itself is artificial. This paradox is hard to explain and grasp, yet, I know exactly what he’s talking about. The computer is a foreign object. It’s artificial, made out of plastic and silicon. Yet, we have integrated it into our daily lives, at least for me anyway. I cannot live without certain artificial technologies because it would be so unnatural for me to exclude them from my daily routine. For example, I use an alarm clock to get up. I type my essays instead of dictating them orally. I put on running shoes before I go running. I sleep in a bed at night with pillows and blankets. These are all technologies that are so natural to me even though they themselves have been manufactured in a factory.
I’m still not sure what to consider technology, but I would agree that technology is artificial (yet, natural to us) and something that utilizes other tools and resources. I also think that it can be liberating, just like how Ong thinks writing has been liberated by technology. However, I know it can be just the opposite of that. I am enslaved to the things that free me most – my computer, my cell phone, and other things… These things help me with the mundane and the extraordinary, but I am constricted within the confines of technology. I cannot pull away from my inbox. I cannot help but catalog every event in my cell phone calendar to help me remember important dates. I cannot even do the most natural thing in the world without technology – and that is to live.
I think that technology is something that helps us achieve something more efficiently and also isn’t natural. Writing is a technology because allows us to write down our thoughts and communicate clearly. And as Ong points out, writing definitely isn’t natural. Ong discusses how we learn how to speak naturally and that we subconsciously know certain grammar rules. Ong says that some grammar rules cannot even be explained in words, yet for some reason, we all understand and follow them. When we really stop and think about it, there are so many things we use everyday that we don’t think of as technology, but they really are. Once a certain technology has been culturally accepted, it seems completely natural, when it’s actually not at all. That is why there are still many people who are illiterate. Everyone just assumes that everyone knows how to read and that is easy, but that’s not the case. There are many people who struggle with reading and writing, and once it gets past a certain point, they probably just give up because they would be too embarrassed to admit it in order to get the help they need. I’m not even sure how illiterate people function in our society because we rely so much on the assumption that everyone was literate. How can they even apply for a job? They wouldn’t be able to make a resume or fill out an application. They also couldn’t use the internet, so they wouldn’t be able to have e-mail or Facebook accounts. They would have to stick to phones, but they couldn’t even text either. Sure, they can still watch television and learn about the news that way, but that’s not even our main source of information now. Our society really takes literacy for granted as something natural to everyone, so some people get left behind.
It’s just weird to think about how many technologies we use that we think of as natural. I never think about it when I’m texting, listening to my iPod or typing because it just comes so “naturally” in my everyday life. But really, those are all pretty recent technologies. I remember when I couldn’t figure out texting for the life of me, and it took me like a half an hour to actually type and send a text, when now it only takes two minutes. I only learned how to text my senior year of high school, so that was just four years ago. While I learned how to type at an early age, it didn’t feel natural to me for a long time. In high school, I always handwrote my papers and then typed them, but now I just start typing and would never waste my time handwriting a paper first. And when iPods first came out, I thought it was so strange. At first I didn’t even want one because I thought keeping all your music on iTunes was weird and I didn’t like how the thumb pad rolled all over the place. But, once my brother got one and I tried his, I saw how much easier getting an iPod was than buying c.d.s. Ong discusses how we often reject technologies before we grow accustomed to them. He talks about how Plato rejected the idea of writing. He said writing destroys memory, which is something we would dismiss today, as we know it doesn’t. Yet, Ong points out that it is the same argument that is used against calculators today. We are so often told we cannot use calculators on a test because we have to know the process of getting the answer and we will be graded on it, but in real life, we would just reach for the calculator if we faced the same math problem. While we may not like certain technologies at first, eventually we come to embrace them and even accept them as natural, and forget that they are even considered technologies in the first place.
Ong suggests that a technology is something which is artificial and unnatural to humans, but at the same time capable of expressing inner human feelings and thoughts. His examples were writing and orchestral instruments. Ong says that writing is unnatural because reading text is not something that people naturally do; we have to teach it to each other, and it is based off of the more natural skill of oral communication because in order to read the words of a text we must sound out the words in our minds. He does not use the term unnatural in a completely derogatory way towards writing, however, because he explains that while scholars such as Plato suggested that writing may weaken the memory and create dependency, much as some modern teachers argue calculators and computers have, writing has also clearly benefitted people and society by providing permanence to communication and extending the reach of ideas and communications. Like a musical instrument, writing is a tool that when learned thoroughly can be used to communicate deep thoughts and feelings, and complicated ideas. I think it’s interesting that Ong compares writing’s existence as a technology and a tool to musical instruments because as a violin player, I find that in listening to music there are often many complex messages and feelings communicated to me that I do not ever experience from any source of written words. I think there is a distinct difference in the way feelings and thoughts are communicated through the ears versus through the eyes, and I agree with Ong’s suggestion that perhaps the ears are the primary method of intercepting communication, and the eyes are secondary. While some people feel no connection to music, it is hard for anyone to say that they have absolutely never had a song sometime in their life invoke a feeling or meaning to them, and many people can invoke complex feelings from songs which are purely instrumental and have no words. I think this is similar to what writing does—it is not a natural communication, like the voice, but it is an adapted tool to communicate with, which can, when used in ways that specifically resonate between a reader and a writer, invoke feelings of connection and deep communication, despite the fact that the text itself which provides this meaning is in itself only an output device.
I think that like the pencil, typing does restructure thought to some extent, especially in a computer. I have found personally, that I have started to prefer communicating through text which I write in a computer over speaking directly to people because I feel more secure being able to edit what I say before it’s sent to another person. At the same time, perhaps Plato was right, because the more I write on my computer or chat in AIM with people, the less comfortable I find myself when I’m speaking and I don’t have a backspace button to depend on. This is certainly not a good thing, and I’m finding myself wanting to take an interpersonal communications class to try to balance myself back out again. Since learning to write essays on a computer at home, where I have long periods of time and plenty of editing opportunities, I’ve found myself having a much harder time forming my thoughts quickly enough in order to be able to respond to oral questions in a class room. As well, I often find myself rambling, or losing my train of thought, or forgetting what I was going to say, because I’ve become used to having a visual cue of what has been said by myself and others on my computer screen. Notes are not the same, because they are not as easily read as typed words, and the words which are unclear to read later do not usually stick in my mind. As well, I can’t seem to handwrite as fast as I type, so much is lost when I hand write notes. Often, I find myself trying to simply aurally remember what has been said in a class, and often typing up an assignment based upon that later in a computer will make the ideas stick fast into my memory. Without a visual and aural link, I don’t retain much of anything. Music is different for me though, for some reason, I have always had a lot of trouble reading music, and I have never been able to ‘hear’ a line in my head by reading it off a page. Notes are only memory guidelines for me, which, after I’ve practiced, I no longer need. I play my violin almost entirely by ear, even though I’ve been in orchestras for over a decade. I think this is interesting because it seems that when reading words, I have to have a written text in order to remember what’s been said and what ideas I had from it, but for music, which often conveys more feelings and thought for me instantaneously than any text, I only need the sound of it in order to use it, and I remember music note for note unusually well. I think that there is a divide between visual information and emotion perhaps, maybe sounds, like oral stories, are better remembered because they trigger emotion. But perhaps there are different kinds of brains out in the world today, and some people feel intensely through texts and pictures and get no feeling from music at all. For me, even deeply emotional paintings are not as communicative as many songs are because there seems to be more of a barrier because of an additional level of necessary interpretation… has anyone else experienced this?
When one thinks of technology they often think of computers, phones and any other device that has furthered society. However, by definition technology means, “the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.” With retrospect to this definition, one’s interpretation of technology could be expanded to include a variety of concepts and label them as technologies. For example, the idea that writing is a technology is debatable because of the varying characteristics it contains. Ong tries to clarify and establish this concept in his reading.
Prior to Ong’s interpretation of writing as a technology, Ong provides an alternate opinion about writing as a technology through the eyes of Plato. Plato proposes that, “writing isn’t a technology because It can be manipulated, it’s inhuman and is artificial and a manufactured product. He also goes to state that written text is unresponsive and that it destroys memory”. I disagree with Socrates indirectly because he essentially provides valuable reasons as to why writing could be considered technology. For instance, technology is something that is created by man for the betterment of society. As Ong states, “writing is a technology, calling for the use of tools and other equipment…”. This validates my theory because the idea of writing initiated what printing and other electronics only continued. As such, one could argue that writing is one of the first inspirations for improving technology. For example, in the early stages of writing, there was little knowledge of varying it since it was a new idea. Yet over centuries it has been altered, developed and adapted by a plethora of countries and civilizations. As such, it should be considered a technology because of its impact that it has had on society.
Another idea that Ong uses to prove that writing is a technology is the concept that writings lifelike ability is its own security in protecting and establishing its survival. According to Ong, this concept is a paradox because something that is lifelike has no fear of ever being forgotten because it was not alive to be remembered. Since it began as an objective idea it will remain as such, while still having the ability to be improved and therefore retained. In addition, Ong establishes the idea that written text is pointless unless collaborated with spoken words. He proposes that written words on paper have little meaning without audio expression. This confused me at first but once I thought about this concept I realized that he was correct. When I read anything, unless there is a quiet environment, I read it aloud but in a low voice. This is to ensure that I fully comprehend the text I am reading instead of simply looking at words on a page. By doing this I get a better understanding of the text rather than losing focus on the lines of the page and as a result losing interest.
The last concept that Ong provides, which is a continuation of his previous theory is that writing is completely artificial. In order to be considered a piece of technology, it has to be created and must be unnatural. Therefore, the idea of writing is acceptable regarding this concept. For example, when a child first learns to walk or speak they have help from their parents but nevertheless it is a natural skill because they possess the potential themselves to learn these things. Writing on the other hand does not qualify because it must be completely taught. One must decide whether to use their left or right hand or as in my case, inadvertently choose to be ambidextrous. Regardless of their choice, the idea that writing is a technology still applies because choosing which hand to right with was not a predetermined idea nor will it become one in the future.
In his article, Walter Ong presents a very interesting idea, one that I had thought about before, but never realized had support to go with my opinion. He says, “Writing was an intrusion, though an invaluable intrusion, into the early human lifeworld, much as computers are today” (21). This is an idea that I have wondered about many times before. What is it that makes the computer so generic? What makes it so different from writing with a pencil and paper? There is the uniformity of the text in that most people use the extremely generic 12-point, Times New Roman, font (ironically, the font I am currently writing in), but that is no longer a necessity. Perhaps for classes it is, but that is only to ensure that people write adequate and equal amounts as their classmates. But the options for other fonts are numerous so creativity and showing a unique personality through the typewritten page is more than possible.
Furthermore, in reading Ong’s article, the concept of technology becomes more distinct. He also discusses Plato’s opinion about writing, pointing out that “Plato’s objections against writing are essentially the very same objections commonly urged today against computers by those who object to them. Writing…is inhuman… Writing is simply a thing, something to be manipulated, something inhuman, artificial, a manufactured product. We recognize here the same complaint that is made against computers: they are artificial contrivances, foreign to human life” (21). This idea of artificiality is one of the primary problems with the computer in many peoples’ minds. They believe the computer creates something that does not have this personal touch, yet this was a problem with Plato about handwriting. He believed the only way to pass on thought was from person to person, mind to mind. To move from the mind to paper weakens the mind, allowing people to lost some of their mental capacity because they no longer need to remember as much because it can simply be put down on paper and forgotten.
In spite of Plato’s objections, writing became the most important aspect of our culture. Ironically, without writing, we would not even know what Plato’s thoughts were and would not know much history from the past. Art and pictures are wonderful, but they only tell so much. In order to further society, writing became a necessity. Still, over time, numerous writings have been lost because of their lack of reproduction. However, with the computer, it becomes easier and easier to reproduce so the likelihood of losing works becomes smaller and smaller. So, bearing in mind the similarities that these two sources of print have, what makes something a technology?
Does technology simply mean the advent of a new tool? Or does that tool have to have practical benefits, possibly benefits that actually aid society? What is it that makes something break the border and become technology? In general, most new things that have some use are technology. A new type of tool for building a house, digital cameras, LCD televisions, lighter weight & warmer jackets, and shape ups shoes are all examples of technologies. And, as can be seen, they cover a wide range of categories. Yet, each one of them is a kind of technology. By this notion, therefore, technology is simply an advance, a move forward from a similar concept of the past. A more advanced hammer is a new technology, just as much as a laptop compared to a pencil. Hammers have continually advanced throughout time, stepping up and getting easier to use, just as the pencil led to the typewriter which led to the computer, which led to the Apple MacBook Pro I am writing on right now. They are both advances in technology.
There is no real criterion that makes something a technology or not. Most things are technologies, or at least have some factors that could allow one to argue they are. In essence, technology is really just an advance or creation of something new. Just as the computer is a relatively new technology for us, writing itself was a new technology for Plato. Everything came from somewhere, evolving over time. While the pencil does not seem like much to us, it was a very new and innovative technology a few hundred years ago.
As a teacher candidate, I have always learned about the values of writing. I pretty much have it engraved in my head that writing for students promotes critical thinking and creativity. As an English major, writing has become second nature to me, and I have never seen it as an alien part of education. Ong, on the other hand, views writing in a more negative light, much like how some people are resistant of the use of computers in our daily lives. I may have initially disagreed with Ong, but she brought up many points about how writing is a technology as well, a concept we had not dived into until now. When asked about the definition of technology, I decided to look it up in the dictionary. The definition stated, “the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science” (Merriam Webster Online). Technology is the product of human hands and minds, an artificial component of our daily lives. With this said, and deeming writing as a technology, Ong’s notion of writing as artificial appears to make sense. Stories, legends and the like had always been passed down from generations orally, until different types of writing, whether it be Greek, cuneiform or hieroglyphics, were developed. This additional skill made it possible for people to record history to where people could recount thousands of years later. Another example would be Native American myths, in which they too were passed down early, but stories were becoming forgotten until explorers began to record them. Without writing, the world would never know of William Shakespeare, Mark Twain or even Martin Luther. While there certainly are benefits of the technology of writing, Ong presents the shortcomings of writing that I had never really thought about. Her use of Plato and his distaste for writing was a good example of how advancements of technology are not always well received, like the anti-computer group from Baron’s “Handwriting Day” article. Writing is an acquired skill, not like language which comes naturally no matter where a person is raised. With that said, Ong notes how writing can disrupt the thought process due to the persons desire to write it down. A thought may come out differently spoken rather than written down, for the issue of proper grammar and mechanics can arise among other things. Writing may have hurt the capacity of memory as well; similar to how calculators have made it more difficult for students to learn their multiplication tables. I am not saying Ong is against writing; instead, she is simply pointing out how unnatural writing is and reminding the reader that writing is just as much of a technology, if not, more important than printing and the computer. In the words of Ong, writing, “initiated only what printing and electronics continued, the physical reduction of dynamic sound and quiescent space, the separation of the word with the living present, where alone real, spoken words exist” (Ong 22). Writing has been taken for granted and is such a large part of our daily lives that it goes unnoticed. However, we must remember that since it is a technology, it is an acquired skill that people grasp at different skill levels. As a future teacher, I take this article as a reminder that if a student is having trouble writing, I need to consider the fact that writing is just as much of a technology as a computer, and some people need more time to succeed in this artificial skill.
In light of Ong’s article, I think we can call a technology: anything that does not come naturally. This is consistent with our past readings as well; the uniting message being that when we become completely comfortable with any one of these technologies (pencils, erasers, etc.), they become naturalized in our minds, and we forget that they we were once without them. This argument certainly makes sense to me. I think it has happened over and over throughout civilization and it will continue to do so. I believe that society is almost to that point with computers and cell phones. In just a couple generations, no one will be able to remember a time when you couldn’t just MapQuest your way around or keep tabs on your kids by calling their cell.
Ong’s main argument in this article is that writing has undergone this very process: the eerie transformation of novel technology to second nature. He claims that we are all under the “impression that literacy is an always to be expected and even natural state of affairs” (19). Society has come to be so accustomed to writing that we cannot imagine successfully conducting ourselves without it. Our culture is structured so closely our ability to read and write that any person without these skills is seen as lacking or somehow deficient. I certainly agree with Ong that this is the way our modern world functions. I can barely even imagine what life would be like if all information was transmitted verbally.
One part of Ong’s discussion that I do not completely follow is the way he tells us writing has affected the way we think. He talks about how Plato’s argument against writing would not have been possible to formulate without the ability to writing in the first place. “We know that totally oral peoples,” he says, “intelligent and wise though they often are, are incapable of the protracted, intensive linear analysis that we have from Plato’s Socrates” (22). Why not? Is the invention of writing really what gave the human race the ability to analyze and reason? This seems to me an extremely difficult question to even consider, but I don’t yet see the connection that Ong is drawing. I do believe that writing your thoughts down make it easier to construct a sound argument and see logic, but surely ancient peoples were thinking logically before they discovered written language.
In trying to digest this argument that writing as a technology has restructured the way we think, I tried to analyze how computers and Internet may have changed our thinking more recently. One thing that I can definitely pick out from my personal experience is an increased sense of independence. When I want to know something – directions, recipes, random facts, reviews, movie times, etc. I don’t have to directly rely on someone else to give me the information I need. Instead I just flip open my laptop, and a quick Google search will give me step by step directions to St. Louis, a great enchilada recipe, or the name of that one actor in that one movie that I just can’t think of. Obviously, I am reliant on whomever puts those bits of information on the Internet in the first place, but I don’t have to find someone to ask, learn from past experience, look for a book containing the information, or use trial and error to figure out what I want to know. I have internalized the power and availability of the Internet to a point where I never think of myself as being totally in the dark or incapable of knowing. I always feel capable of independently figuring things out…as long as I have access to the Internet!
Ong claims that writing is a technology that restructures thought. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Writing definitely restructures my thoughts, and I hold education responsible for it. In school, I was always taught how to present an argument through writing. This is especially more so in my high school and college years than my elementary school writing. Nevertheless, I was taught that I needed good textual evidence to support my argument. I was taught various ways of formatting my writing in order present my argument as efficiently as possible. After so many years of schooling and writing, I find myself making an essay out of everything in my life. What I am trying to say is, I tackle daily problems, arguments, or any communication issue the way I would through writing. After so many years of writing, I find that my thinking is clearer when I place the information in the context of writing. To me, this seems natural, but I know that it is anything but normal. It is not normal when I am having a conversation with a friend about a topic and I am formulating a mental essay about it in my head. It has come to the point where I am truly more effective not only communicating, but also thinking in the context of writing, than I am through the more “natural” oral communication. This is why I agree with Ong’s claim that writing is a technology that restructures thought.
I also agree with the part of the statement which claims that writing is in fact a technology. I think Ong’s argument of what constitutes a technology is a good start, but I do not fully agree with it. Ong mentions that writing is a technology because it requires certain hardware or instruments. I think this is a very useful definition which can be used to easily identify technology. I do feel, however, that there are technologies that do not fit under this definition. An example of this is language in general. Language is a system. A language is made up of rules which one must follow in order to effectively communicate with others. A word’s meaning is only derived from the words around it. In this way, there is an order required in any language. Language in terms of oral speech is also systematic, and thus a technology as well. The sounds of a language can be broken down to a set list of phonemes. These phonemes are all categorized into certain groups according to the sound they produce. So, while language does not require any obvious hardware or instruments to perform its task, it is still a technology because it follows the idea that a technology is anything that is artificial and unnatural. While saying that language and speech is unnatural to human beings might seem like a very unnatural thing to say, it is rightly so because language is an artificial system created by human beings. In today’s society where we are surrounded by extremely high-tech gadgets like ipad’s, iphones, hybrid cars, and solar panels, it is very easy to fail to recognize the technologies which do not have any shiny hardware to them. Hey, if does not have an Apple logo it can’t be a technology, right?
One of the most important aspects of Ong’s definition of technology would be his use of the word “artificial.” He explains how Plato saw writing as a “simply a thing, something to be manipulated, something inhuman.” (21) I find this definition of technology to be adequate and truthful. There are certain specifications that I believe apply, such as that technology generally should be created by humans for some purpose of greater efficiency or convenience. It stands to reason that the express purpose of technology isn’t to make things complicated. Technology may create complications in certain ways, and Ong discusses this. One of his examples is music, how instruments are complicated and artificial, but what they make easier is human expression. So in this case, the complication lies in the instrument, how it is used and made. But what the technology of a musical instrument makes simpler or easier in some way is the expression of the “human psyche” and “human spirit.” (24)
This was also certainly the case with writing as a technology. Writing is not something that naturally comes to all people, it is a physical manifestation of a sound that is created by humans. Thus its definition as a technology is sound. The argument for writing being artificial and unnatural can also be argued through post-structuralism and the idea that meaning is impossible to fully translate from one person to another, meaning is fluid and dynamic. While this theory applies to language in general, it is especially applicable to writing, since transferring meaning in a literary text is especially difficult. As Ong states, the role of context is vastly different between the realms of writing and speaking. When it comes to speaking, context is based on far more than just the words being spoken. “Nonverbal elements” give the “oral utterance…fuller, situational meaning.” (26) In contrast, “in a text, the entire immediate context of every word is only other words.” (26) Thus words “bear more weight.” (26)
The role of context contributes to the difficulty of transferring meaning through text. Part of this is due to its contrast with the spoken word. In spoken word meaning is transferred more easily because meaning is interpreted through both verbal and nonverbal signals. However there is only one nonverbal form of communication at play with writing and text, and this makes meaning at times more difficult to decipher. There is also the issue of the extra “weight” (26) given to words when they are written. Words have many specific and contrastive definitions, but these only came about as a result of written language. (26)
The topic of distance is also an important aspect of Ong’s definition of technology. As he puts it, technology distances the thinking from what they are expressing. This distance is a problem that Plato brings up, and it is a problem that is also directly connected to current arguments against technology. Both arguments claim that technology ruins the mind due to the distance it creates from the user. Plato claimed humans would become too forgetful and dependant on external resources, similar to how parents now believe that calculators will make their children forget how to do math. (21) Both of these arguments are related to distance in that they claim that relying on technologies that are by definition not internalized and therefore not close to the thinker will result in mental ineptitude. Writing creates this distance because those who read text are removed from the author by mode of whatever they are reading the text on. Computers put an even greater distance between those trying to communicate, because the complication of the machine itself creates distance. Understanding the way in which paper is made is fairly simple. Understanding the way in which a computer is made however, is quite complicated. Thus the distance the latter creates is great than that of the former.
In “Writing is a Technology that Restructures Thought,” Walter J. Ong argues that literacy “is an always to be expected and even natural state of affairs” (19). Similarly, I believe that technology has become normal and natural in our society. Ong argues that technology is beyond the characterization of digital screens. There is much to be said about the technology of writing. Writing is contrasted with oral culture because writing is something that must be learned, while talking is something that every able human being learns to do. According to Plato’s Socrates, writing “is simply a thing, something to be manipulated, something inhuman, artificial, a manufactured product” (21). Computers share the same characterization in that they are alien to human life, almost in a completely different dimension of reality. Additionally, text is unresponsive in that “if you ask a text, you get nothing except the same, often stupid words” (21). Computers are essentially what the user makes them. They are designed to carry out particular tasks which must be controlled by a human with at least some skills in the task. A third argument that Ong makes relating writing and computers through the philosophy of Plato’s Socrates is the fact that “Those who use writing will become forgetful, relying on an external source for what they lack in internal resources. Writing weakens the mind” (21). Computers and other electronics today make tasks simpler and prevent us from having to memorize formulas and other information. The last argument made through Plato’s Socrates is that “writing is passive” (21). While writing cannot defend itself, computers also lack the ability to fight back. They are simply carrying out specific functions and nothing more.
I believe that something is considered a technology when it involves a sort of evolution or innovation over time. Writing is a technology because there have come to be so many styles of writing. What began as hieroglyphics eventually lead to cursive handwriting, the typewriter, and is now word processing. Speech, or oral culture, can be viewed as technology as well. What probably began as grunts, eventually lead to the sophisticated lingo of Elizabethan royalty and now the complex array of vocabulary. The words we speak and write have evolved so much over time, that it takes a thick book to define them all. Today, speech is much different than what it was in the past. The jargon used today in many trades, as well as the slang we use has changed drastically. Some words and phrases have become more acceptable than others as time passed. The traditional notion of technology, the response that you might get when you ask a child about technology, involves the computer. The computer is a technology because what started out as a massive machine eventually became smaller and smaller, until today when we are able to store billions of files in the area of a fingernail.
A great deal of technology has to do with culture. For example, American culture is so familiar with technology such as computers. Once one travels to a third world country, the technology changes. Computers are unheard of in most third world countries where entertainment is an unimportant facet of an existence where each and every day is another journey of survival. In these countries, technology still exists, only in alternate forms. For example, people in third world countries learn to make their own clothes and learn their own methods of finding something to eat. Evolutions in these methods can be characterized as technology.
All in all, technology is all around us. The majority of it is often taken for granted. Every time the power goes out, I realize that there is more to technology than electronic devices which require electricity. I realize there are other ways to entertain myself which involve technology, such as reading a book or magazine.