I find Jonah Lehrer’s tactics in The Future of Reading to be emanating from a specific vantage point
but striving toward an open-minded discussion. I think Lehrer’s standpoint is
unique in that he seems to be aware of both his usage of Intertextuality and the
Rhetorical Situation, and makes it a point to isolate no one in his usage of
either. It is Lehrer’s main point to discuss his opinion that the future of
books will be digital and what
negative effects he thinks that will have on readers to come. Because
Grant-Davie references Bitzer’s definition of the rhetorical situation, “the
context in which speakers or writers create rhetorical discourse,” I think it
is important to more adequately identify Lehrer’s specific positionality with this text.
Lehrer himself has written three books: Imagine, dealing with the science of creativity and its
accessibility to all, How We Decide,
which challenges us to think about
how we think, and Proust Was a
Neuroscientist, which claims that science and art are both equal pathways
to knowledge. Because of his specific positionality
within this field of neuroscience as it relates to human emotion and
reason, I would regard him as a particularly reliable source when it comes to
this topic of how humans read and why.
I would also consider him hyper aware of the scrutiny that someone, like
us, could be placing on his work. His
body of work seems to suggest an individual who is keen on all possible angles
to every situation. My reading of The
Future of Reading is complicated by Lehrer’s discussion of how we physically read in relation to
Grant-Davie and Bazerman’s discussion of how we analytically read. This connection clarifies for me how closely
related these three texts actually are.
As Bitzer breaks down the rhetorical situation, he
identifies three key components: exigence, audience, and constraints. In
Lehrer’s case, his exigence is our rapidly changing culture in regards to how
we read text. It is with a sense of urgency that he calls into question the
idea of the word going completely digital and what sorts of problems that might
create. As Bitzer defines his audience as “those who are in a position to help
solve the exigence,” I would identify the audience of Lehrer’s piece strictly
to those who frequent the Wired Science webpage.
This may seem general but I believe there are very specific guidelines imposed within
this. These parameters include only those who share an avid interest in science
and also human nature. These are generally academic people, who would appreciate
this analysis on something they routinely do: read. The constraints, or
limitations on the Rhetor, as I best understand it, seem to be not only the
specific choice of platform, which causes him to pinpoint a particular
audience, but also the balance he had to find between stating his opinion
against digital books and also admitting his own usage of them. This is
important because he is speaking to an audience that, like Lehrer, both
appreciates books and technology. I
think this battle is what makes this argument unique to others on the same
subject. He is against the transformation of text into digital format, yet he
shows mutual respect and understanding for
the advancement.
The Future of Reading
uses certain Levels of Intertextuality specified by Bazerman. The third level,
that of the text “as background, support, and contrast” is present in Lehrer’s
reference to Stanislas Dehaene’s research on the “neural
anatomy of reading.” This source is to be taken not only at face value but is
also meant to directly support and build his repute with readers. These facts
about the two ways in which humans read sets up his later claims of how reading
digitally re-mastered text could create the eventual simplification of the
written word.
Bazerman’s
fourth level of intertextuality, “the text may rely on beliefs, issues, ideas,
statements generally circulated,” is also present in this piece. Common
knowledge to most Americans is the all-too-familiar ideal of fearing the
effects of up-and-coming technologies. Our country has seen this with the radio
to television to movies to the Internet and now with e-readers/tablets. Because
we easily recognize this concept of fearing new technologies, Lehrer
ingeniously acknowledges this myth. He speaks of his own usage of the
technology, as to pinpoint his realization that we, in actuality, have nothing
to fear. He simply wants his readers to be aware and consider the
possibilities, which no one can exactly predict.
It is
Lehrer’s seeming sensitivity to these concepts of intertextuality that makes
reading this article very interesting from my vantage point. I think it is
clever on his part to strive to do anything but
isolate any audience member. I found that whether one was against the digital
text or for it, there were aspects of Lehrer’s article that strike close to
home. This is an important aspect of
intertextuality that I will take away from analyzing this article. There is a
way to find balance through referencing other texts, where an audience catches
the “echoing words and thoughts from one place or another,” that can establish
a complex argument that a wide audience can engage with.
Sources:
Grant-Davie's Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents
Bazerman's Intertextuality: How Texts Rely on Other Texts
Photo: http://en.akihabaranews.com/52548/e-book/sony-promote-ebook-reading-in-public-libraries-with-the-reader-library-program
No comments:
Post a Comment