Page 22 - Literacy in the New Media Age

PREFACE 11

We cannot now hope to understand written texts by looking at the resources of
writing alone. They must be looked at in the context of the choice of modes
made, the modes which appear with writing, and even the context of which
modes were not chosen. In the context of a book on literacy (still) the mode that
occurs most frequently with the mode of writing is the image, whether in the
print-media, or on the screen. We need to be aware however, that on the screen
writing may appear with the modes of music, of colour, of (moving) image, of
speech, of soundtrack. All these bear meaning, and are part of one message. The
mode of writing is one part of that message, and so writing is partial in relation
to the message overall.
In all this, one of our major problems is not just change itself, but the fact that
we are forced to confront this world of change with theories which were shaped
to account for a world of stability. There is an urgent need for theoretical
accounts that tell us how to understand communication in periods of instability.
That is the present reality. The processes which are at work have not yet run
their course. Just as one example, in the area of technology, the prospect of
relatively reliable speech-recognition is already on the horizon; it is one further
factor which will have profound if not precisely predictable consequences.
Writing will be moved more in the direction of becoming – once again – the
transcription of speech, just at the very time when the screen is pushing writing
in the direction of visuality. I have attempted to capture some of the more
obvious and I hope also more significant features of this moment, and have tried
to focus on change not nostalgically but realistically. Change is always with us,
for the simple reason that humans act, and act with intent. They work, and work
produces change. Change is not neutral, nor is it the same at all times in history:
it is always change of a particular kind, moving in particular directions,
favouring one group rather than another. The real difference between times of
seeming stability and times such as this is that now, we – unless we are politicians
– can neither pretend that there is stability nor demand it, other than as an
ideological act.
Where possible I want to indicate what the relations between the wider social
and economic environment and the forms and means of communication might be
like. To communicate is to work in making meaning. To work is to change
things. That is the reason I like the metaphor of the ‘communicational
landscape’. The ‘scape’ in ‘landscape’ is related to the English word ‘shape’, and
it is also related to the German word ‘schaffen’ – meaning both ‘to work’ and ‘to
create’.
Any landscape, the communicational included, is the result of human work.
‘Human’ and therefore full of affect and desire; ‘human’ and therefore always
social and cultural. To make meaning is to change the resources we have for
making meaning, to change ourselves, and to change our cultures. Many of the
issues that I focus on here have been much discussed already, in many ways they
have become clichés already. Maybe by putting the clichés into this framework I
can show their significance anew. If there is change, there is also much that