Although not a very exciting article, I found "Literacy, Technology, and Monopoly Capitalism" an interesting read. For being written in 1985, Ohmann seemed to be ahead of his time. Between the dehumanization of people in the work place and online shopping, his predictions for the future turned out to be pretty accurate. And after reading his history on the word "literate," how does this change the definition of "literacy" that we all have? Can it be classified as a "measurable quantity" and/or does "literacy" go beyond the ability to read and write, into comprehension and the ability to function in a society?
As generic as a question as this is, what do you think the definition of Monopoly Capitalism is? Ohmann presents a few examples but refuses to discuss the topic in great detail- why would this be? This seems to be a common theme throughout the essay, the use of examples rather than exact definitions. Does this make the paper easier or harder to understand? How about the lack of decisiveness? I understand that the essay is meant to be suggestive, but what power does that hold? Has your life changed because of this article? If Ohmann dove into his topics more and had a stronger point he was trying to get across, would this article make more of a difference?
There is one sentence that I feel sums up the entire article: “We should be critically analyzing the politics of all these tendencies, trying to comprehend them historically, and engaging our students in a discussion of literacy and technology that is both historical and political.” Truthfully, I think he should’ve ended the essay on that statement. Ohmann brings up a very good point about how we have been defining literacy, everything has a context in which it was made, and should that not be looked at just as closely as the subject which it produced, i.e. literacy in the 1880’s becoming the defining line between those who are “well-read and civilized” and those who are not.
While I’m not all together pleased with Ohmann’s approach in this article, I do agree with his arguments...or suggestions...whatever he wants to call them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Maybe the dictionary definition of literacy has changed since 1880, but the connotation that goes along with the term today seems to go hand in hand. If you are illiterate, you are ignorant, at least in this regard. With the increase of general education, people are freed of their ignorance, or as Munroe says, the "lower-class" individuals simply become discontented.
After reading this and these past articles, my definition of literacy has been expanded. I have always realized that illiteracy eliminates most possibilities in schooling and jobs, especially in this society. However, I had only briefly considered the impact literacy has on every aspect of life, from a conversation with a friend to being able to drive, shop, eat, and communicate basic needs.
It is not that I think Ohmann does not discuss the system of Monopoly Capital in great detail; it is that he does not give one specific definition of this. Rather he illustrates consequences and explains this system as “the ocean in which we now swim” as though he need not condescend to explain in detail. At any rate, I saw monopoly capital as the basic trend toward a more corporate world driven by production and consumption.
He feels negatively about computers and questions their effectiveness toward improving the “literacy rate”, informing the reader that 50 to 75 percent of jobs in 1990 will be “computer-related” however this does not imply even slight understanding of computers.
I agree that Ohmann was ahead of his time and his predictions were pretty accurate about dehumanizing the workplace. However, I must say that computers have completely changed our lives in every aspect from work to school to home. Ohmann thinks computers are being pushed forward and won't really make that much of a difference. He seems to think that people will not change that much and the computers will therefore not have that much of an effect. I disagree though. People have become more computer literate, especially people in business and education. If people are not able to keep up with the technology, they are replaced by people who have current skills.
I also love the comment about Ohmann using examples not definitions. I was thinking the same thing as I was reading and I hated it. I understand he wants us to think through the process and is giving us different lenses to look through. However, if he wanted to persuade the reader, he should have been more clear with some of his statements. I mean, I'm still confused about what monopoly capital has to do with literacy. I wish he would have developed his article with a little more relative detail and definitions.
After I kind of let the article and class discussion sink in, I sort of think that Ohmann made very good predictions about what might happen to our nation. Although I do not agree with every little thing he stated in the article, I must comment on his "#4 Computers" section because, to me, he's mainly right.
So he says in that part that computers are going to take over the home, workplace and classroom and that we will need to soon teach computer literacy. Well isn't that completely true? Almost every person's house I've been to in my life has had a computer. And unless you work at a job that doesn't need a desktop or laptop, there is a computer. And take a look around Ohio University, the library has computers on every floor, some dorms have computer labs, many classroom buildings have computer labs and every dorm room on campus is provided with a computer. That statement was a great prediction.
Then he goes on to say that we'll have to teach computer literacy. Well I remember being in elementary school and playing a game called Oregon Trail so that we, as students, could use and familiarize ourselves with computers. And in middle school I took computer classes. I'm sure that kids these days are getting the same teaching, if not more.
Then probably one of the most interesting sentences he says in that section is something about the adults now that don't have computer literacy will be compared to those people that can't read. That brings up an interesting point because when I think about my grandparents, my grandpa has a computer and he wanted to be taught how to use it, get online and all that jazz. I think that will become really true shortly because most adults are becoming more familiar and the ones that are turning into grandparents will already be familiar.
Sorry I just commented on the one section, but I found it really interesting as to how easy it was to predict how things are going these days. Will it be that easy to predict what will happen in our future? I think so.
Ohmann was beyond his years in predicting the future of literacy. It was almost like we were reading an article from modern times on the viewpoint of Have computers taken over our minds? I found it very interesting when Ohmann says, "I think that computers are diffusing a new form of literacy but are unable to satisfy all the intellectual needs that they stimulate." We briefly discussed this idea in class, that although computers can be of great help to us in research and entertain us any hour of the day... computers cannot give us the same satisifaction that experiences can create within us. If a computer can pull up an image of a painting from ancient roman times, are we content with never visiting the museum in which it resides? If google can locate an image from any destination point in the world, can we be satifisied in never visiting far away places. I hope not. Hopefully computer screens never take away our need to experience a different form of involvement within the world around us. The same agrument could be made against books.
I was really impressed with how OhMann presented his case, I really like the fact that he gave both sides of the argument, which allowed the reader to to choose what they believed.
Although OhMann was ahead of his time, I think he was pretty accurate in his predictions. I understand both sides of the argument, however, I do think there will always be a need for human labor whether dehumanizing or not.
I learned a lot from reading what OhMann had to say, especially because he did include both sides of the argument...it was very helpful!
I would have to agree with everyone by saying Ohmann was defiantly ahead of his time in predicting the use of computers and technology. I would also have to say that after reading his essay and just from being in class and discussing literacy my definition has changed a lot. As Ohmann predicted computers would become a household item and every classroom and office would have them. With that being said I think for our generation literacy has a lot to do with being able to be literate on the computer. We still have to be able to read, write and speak, but i think for us it is almost just as important to be able to type, use computer programs and know how to properly use the inernet. I think our computer literacy changes daily in trying to learn and keep up with all the new advances in the technology world.
Obviously, as everyone else has said, Ohmann was way ahead of his time. I agree with this and all of you who have said it. While I feel differently than most of the class about computers and sentament and how somehow it is more meaningful to read a book than it is to read a computer screen. Someone above mentioned seeing a painting being an experience that might not be possible on a computer, but I think it is the same thing as looking at a painting in real life. I've been to Paris, I've seen the Mona Lisa, I've been to Claude Monet's house, and the only thing I found any more interesting than looking at a computer screen was standing on the bridge that is in so many of his paintings.. I do not think computers ruin our minds, but I do think that we have to try harder to use our creativity while on a computer.
My favorite part of the article what the 4th sections on computers. There I believe Ohmann started to elaborate a little more on his definition of “monopoly capital”. He described how computers where going to be a household item use for more than just recreation, and that soon “computerized shopping” would be available. This would change the economic structure and open new channels for certain markets. By these statements, I think Ohmann was trying to describe “monopoly capital”.
I too realized that he tended to use a lot of examples rather than definitions, but we must remember that when he was trying to make these points, the average person would not have understood with a simple definition.
This was one of my favorite articles that we have read so far. Most articles are written by men who feel very passionate about either being for or against computers, but it is very hard for me to relate to these men.
I can understand both sides of the arguments because I think that it is not the computers that are the problem, it is the dependency that everyone has on them. It is the responsibility of the person to understand that computers are used to make every day tasks easier, but we need to remind ourselves to not get too carried away with all the technology.
Computers are a tool that can be very helpful with literacy and other educational lessons, but in the end it is a balance of using the technlogy to assists us, and not completely take over our lives.
This article definately expands upon our current definition of literacy, venturing into the socio-political implications built into the word. It makes a lot of sense that people of lower economic status and illiterate are disempowered by their position.
Something I was a little skeptical about, however, were the stats about Cuba and how they reduced their illiteracy rate to something like 4%. The letters that were written to Fidel seemed barely literate, and considering that those that were providing the so-called education, maybe their literacy is questionable. I'm just not convinced that those people are now empowered. What seems likely to me is that they may think they're better off, but really they're situation is so slightly improved that they're really worse off with false senses of education.
Anyway, though, this article is also pertinent to another article we read on the wind-up computers. The perspective presented here ends the argument over the benefits of those computers, basically, any kind of experience with computers is going to benifit the students regardless of whether the similarity of those programs to popular ones.
I really liked the part where Ohmann asked you to think about the invention of writing or printing. Its interesting to ponder their beginnings and think about how things might be altered if they were created by different persons or under other circumstances. It reminds me of the fact that history is portrayed differently depending on who wrote the source of the history. For example there are many book sthat claim Christopher Columbus discovered America, when in fact there were already people here when he arrived. So someone else obviously discovered America first, but since most history books are written by Europeans so they give credit to Christopher Columbus.
I agree the most with what Myitat4 said. i think that a picture is just a picture, it doesnt matter where you see it as long as it hasnt been altered through photoshop or other picture editing software. I mean yes it would be a nice experience going to paris and seeing all the famous artworks but to me i dont think it would be worth the wait in the line. much like in the movie Eurotrip how they go to a museum and the line goes all the way around the building. I am not a patient person so if i can see the same picture on my computer with the click of a mouse then i would be just as happy doing it that way.
This article definitely helped expand my definition of literacy. I also agree with Myitat4's statement "I do not think computers ruin our minds, but I do think that we have to try harder to use our creativity while on a computer." I don't really see the difference between viewing something on a computer or having it in front of me. The only thing I do not like is when you are reading an online article and it's not formatted to fit the page... having to scroll from left to right all the time can be annoying. Computers are definitely positive things though.
Post a Comment