Scissors, paper… hypertext

Lisha talks about the learning potential of hypertext systems, providing that students apply themselves thoughtfully to Web 2.0.  Mustafa contemplates the benefits books and e-books.  He believes that physical books will live on because of people’s nostalgia for the form (and as an adornment)!  Amelia felt a little fatigued after reading Ted Nelson (this seems to be a common theme) but the accuracy of Nelson’s predictions force us to sit up and take stock of the network culture in which we live.  With this in mind, should network literacy be cultivated earlier for newer generations?  And James wonders considers if the Internet be a dying technology in the way that some argue books are…

…God help us?

Symposium 6

Interesting discussion today on the potential of hypertext, as set out by Ted Nelson many decades ago… and how its capacity to represent a dynamic communication network isn’t quite being realised on the Web, despite the myriad advancements in technical invention over the years.

Conceptualisation and thus realisation of the technology (vis-à-vis that enduring form vs. content debate) seems like one very plausible reason.  Or to put it more simply, people are still stuck in the paradigm of linearity from print as the default communicative technology (…at least up until the 21st century).

Indeed, using text alone (via print) to express the full intricacies of a network and dynamic (or reciprocal) streams of communication between ‘nodes’ in the network doesn’t quite do it justice, I think … The network is a 3-dimensional beast which 2-D schematics go some of the way to helping visualise… but only some of the way.

Hypertext

Landow’s writing on hypertext and what it means for the way we communicate provides a comprehensive conceptual detailing of the rather profound differences of this medium relative to print.

There are a lot of ideas in here.  Perhaps my biggest takeaway idea is that hypertext facilitates a network and what a network emphasizes is the communicative aspect of the artefact (i.e. the text).

The technology of hypertext and the internet seems to sum up everything that defines that nebulous term postmodernity – decentralized, non-hierarchical systems of organisation, etc, etc. –  that prioritize the dialogue and the discourse incited by a text (if that’s where you began) – rather than the sacredness and infallibility of the text alone.

Although, in the era of the digital technology and hypertext, hierarchies do of course still exist, masquerading as community – look at Facebook or Google, for example (I’m not singling you out here Google, it’s just you’re prone to exemplification and superlatives).  I’m reminded of a quote by English cultural theorist Raymond Williams talking about the tendency of the most powerful groups to shape the ways technologies are used (way back in 1974) – which he describes as:

‘[a] counter-revolution, in which…a few para-national corporations, with their attendant states and agencies, could further reach into our lives’.

Nevertheless, hypertext as a technology seems to inherently favor a kind of socially democratic form of community.  So a homegrown website might be bought out by a corporation once it becomes popular, for advertising revenue, but then another homegrown site will pop up.

Anyway, I’ve digressed somewhat. …

The immediacy of hypertext allows us to follow a thread of enquiry immediately and if we are to participate in a community, which the online environment encourages, then we have to communicate our information, our knowledge, our thoughts – rather than keeping it private (notes scribbled along the margins of a printed page) – and that I think can markedly stimulate the way and the speed at which we learn… (so long as we are literate enough about the network to be wary of possible pitfalls).

References:

Landow, George P. Hypertext 3.0: Critical Theory and New Media in an Era of Globalization. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2006.

Freedman, D. (2002). A’Technological Idiot’? Raymond Williams and Communications Technology. Information, Communication & Society5(3), 425-442.