Monday, March 28, 2011

Gregory Ulmer, Electracy, Divination, and More

My excellent professors at USF (Moxley & Santos) were able to get the incomparable Gregory Ulmer to come to campus last week, and I was able to make it to Tampa (for once) to attend his speech and subsequent meeting with grad students. Last semester in Santos' New Rhetorics class, we read Electronic Monuments, and at the time, I was really puzzled by Ulmer's connection of rhetoric and divination. My response to this puzzlement was to write a paper that I sort of like.  So, this blog is my comments on Ulmer's comments as heard through Electronic Monuments and the paper that I wrote.

Ulmer is interested in "heuretics," which he defines as the logic of invention, but I wonder about the term "logic" in this definition. The inclusion of divination in rhetoric reminds us that logic is only one (small) tool in the rhetorician's toolbox. In the "electracy" (the electronic environment that has succeeded literacy as the cultural milieu of the 21st century), all avenues of invention must be explored. Ulmer listed "Black Swan" events, those rare and unpredicted disasters such as 9/11, Katrina, and the BP spill, as potential sites for rhetoricians to work. Consultants failed to predict these events; "emerAgents," electrate consultants working pro bono (such as Ulmer himself) should begin to use rhetorical tools, including divination, to provide solutions that traditional consultants have not been able to provide.

The gift of rhetoric to the world was that deliberative reason made citizen participation possible. What happens to deliberative reason in the electracy? For one thing, citizen participation is more possible than ever, but as citizen voices become more numerous, it is potentially more difficult to be heard. For another, "truth" has a small and uncertain niche in the conversation. (witness repeated calls for the birth certificate which has been produced ad infinitum, or, more universally recognized, the special task force that reassured Hitler that Jews indeed were human). Ulmer hopes that electracy could be used to bridge orality and literacy (as he broadly defines them, orality perpetuates a religious worldview/metaphysics, while literacy perpetuates a scientific worldview).

Electracy has allowed (forced?) people to experience ourselves differently, as we construct our identities not only traditionally, but online. Freud used the term unheimlich to describe the uncanny; the result of alienation, the uncanny is the result of making public that which should be secret. The electracy allows for, indeed almost requires, the revealing of Too Much Information, resulting in a near-global sense of the unheimlich, a translation of the ancient Greek concept of Nemesis. Nemesis is "the fatal," that end which cannot be escaped. This brings us to the entelechial question within electracy. For Aristotle, the entelechy (ultimate end) of humanity was happiness; for the early Church, salvation and union with God. Literacy proposed evolutionary humanism, a gradual improvement of the human condition; unfortunately, the tail end of the era of literacy, as embodied in postmodernism, questioned not only humanism, but the existence of any telos (entelechial goal) whatsoever. This is one question that has yet to be resolved for electracy: does it have a goal, or is it characterized by complexity (no telos, only emergence)?

One notable characteristic of electracy is that it removes the element of time. Like the firehose of the twitter stream, information comes at us so quickly that there is no time to process it; Ulmer thus identifies epiphany as the epistemology of he electracy. Here lies a key tie-in with divination; divination is the making of meaning from apparently random images and ideas as they present themselves to the electrate individual (if I were discussing  literacy, I would call this individual a reader, but we need a new verb to indicate the characteristic activity of electracy). In other words, declares Ulmer, Black Swans are communication to us from our machines; it is up to the newly electrate individual to learn to "read" and respond to these communications. Ulmer credits Baudrillard with defining the methodology of the electrate as figurative; again, meaning must be "read" in to signs/symbols. Thus the world becomes a location for the making of meaning, of metaphor, of poetry, of epiphany. Rather than the solitary epiphany of the modernist poetry, though, the electracy calls for a collective meaning, shared through the electrate apparatus.

Can't get enough Ulmer?

Friday, March 11, 2011

I went to a conference this week on Information Fluency.  Before I submitted a proposal for the conference, I didn't really know what information fluency was; I thought it was probably synonymous with information literacy. After doing some reading, though, I discovered that information fluency combines ideas from information literacy, critical thinking, and technological literacy.  The conference meshed perfectly with my sort of newly emerging identity as half-fish, half-fowl (that is a librarian/rhetorician).  Although I did attend a couple of sessions on information literacy, I also heard some outstanding presentations on new media and our students.

Some ideas that I came away with wanting to follow up on:

  • Wonder wheel


  • Personal geography: we all construct an "internet" that we feel at home in.  This idea meshes with my ideas on sources and place, so as I revise for ACL, this may well find its way in.
  • Ambient Findablility

  • New Media Reader

There will be more-- these are just from my notes from the first two days.

Friday, March 4, 2011

Rattling my Bars

This week I had a chance to change my life.  A situation occurred (see Meeting the Dragon) that resulted in what appeared to be a fork in my road, a chance to stay on the path I'm on or to veer off in another, very appealing direction.

Boy, I was tempted.  I woke up happy for a couple of days straight thinking about all of the choices that were suddenly open to me.  There was a little skip in my step. I sounded out a couple of friends, my boss, and my most trusted advisor.  I prayed.

Suddenly last night, I had a revelation.  I get bored when I have a week of vacation.  If I didn't have this job that I love/hate, I would probably drive my poor family mad.  Even though I come home frustrated plenty of nights, I come home feeling good plenty of nights too.  I have a job that always challenges me, since even when I think I've seen everything, something I can't imagine comes up and I get to figure out how to handle it.  I work with the best folks in the world. I have the opportunity where I am to make a difference, sometimes.  I realized that even with the door to the cage wide open, I don't need to run through it.  Sometimes the cage is actually the sanctuary.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Lists, Lists, Lists

I'll admit it before we go any further: I love lists!  I love checking items off lists one at a time.  I love organizing random collections into lists.  I love seeing lists grow smaller as I march through them with a sense of accomplishment. 

A book came out last year about checklists and how they help to maintain quality in processes from cooking to medicine.  I haven't read it yet, but it's on my list.

A couple of years ago I found a site that I really love called Lists of Bests.  If you've ever thought about reading all of the Pulitzer prize winning books, or that pesky BBC list that's been making its way around Facebook, you can keep track here.  There are lists of movies and music too, in case you are an all-around culture-philiac.  You can even make your own lists, or edit someone else's.

One list that I found on Lists of Bests that I've been reading my way through is called The New Classics: Books from Entertainment Weekly.  It's a list of their top 100 books from the past 25 years (as of 2008).  I've made my way more than halfway through the list so far, and found some wonderful new titles and authors.


I've "adopted" more lists than I should have at the Lists of Bests site, so I'm going more slowly than I should.  But I've got the BBC lists (first hundred and second hundred), NPR's "100 Best Beach Books Ever" (including this one--really? for the beach?) and Mental Floss' list of the 25 most influential books of the past 25 years

All of these lists are plenty to keep me reading for the next several years, but they are dwarfed by the big-daddy of all my lists, my Library Thing to-read list, currently at 462 titles.  It's just a hazard of my job, that when I read reviews, I read them both to consider for purchase by the library, and also as possible candidates for my own list. 

Now I just need a reliable way to keep track of my lists (oh, wait, Lists of Bests has that too). 

p.s. The BBC book lists have many classic titles which are available for the kindle for free download. 

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Sticks and Stones


There’s been a lot of tweeting about the controversy stirred up by victim-blaming Nir Rosen (regarding Lara Logan).  He’s apologized and resigned from his job over tweets that intimated that Lara’s attack might have been warranted.

Remember just a short time ago when the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords prompted calls for less incendiary rhetoric?  I’m disappointed in us, that only a month later a journalist’s attack could be used as fodder to make someone’s political point.

Why is it that we tend to feel so strongly about politics?  Why do we get (let’s admit it) angry when we strongly disagree with someone’s political stance?  Why do we agree with and applaud rhetoric that we would punish our children for—as long as it is for us and against our opponents?  Why do we repost incendiary articles that call names, sensationalize, quote out of context, and otherwise mislead?

I don’t know – but I’m making a commitment not to participate.  No matter how strong my feelings are (and they’re quite strong), I won’t:
  • Call names
  • Make ad hominem attacks
  • Quote out of context
  • Retweet or repost information that violates these guidelines
If I break these rules, call me to account.  Just don’t call me names.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Meeting the Dragon

I’m facing doing something I really, truly don’t want to do.  I’ve had a few days to contemplate it, to go over it in my mind, to dwell on it, to play it out.  And there are no permutations of this that don’t end up badly.  Sometimes I fear things that have to do with my body, like a procedure that might hurt. But that kind of fear is easier.  You just get up, go through it, and come out the other side.  The kind of fear that involves situations with other people is worse.  Steve says that things always go better than I expect, but even if this goes better than I expect, I can’t see how it might go well.
For three full days now, I’ve been going everywhere with a heavy lump of something that feels a lot like doom in my gut.  Tomorrow, I’ll face the dragon.  At this point, though, I don’t know if the dragon is the situation or my fear about the situation. 
Here are my fears: I’ll be sick to my stomach.  I’ll get splotches.  I’ll get so distressed that I completely lose all my words.  I won’t be able to think clearly.  I’ll say something wrong.  I’ll get angry.  I’ll lose my breath and start to croak.  My voice will shake.
I’m pretty sure all of these things will happen.  My hands are shaking now, just thinking about it.  I suppose the easiest thing to do would be to just avoid the whole situation.  Somehow, though, I just know that’s not the right thing to do, so I’ll get up and go to meet it.
Those of you who pray, please pray for me tomorrow.  Those who don’t, I’m open to any and all words of wisdom.
Back to reading soon, I hope, once I can think about normal things again.

Monday, January 31, 2011

Reading Books I Hate

Right now I'm reading two books that I hate,

One that I hate so much that I have a little mantra going in my head the whole time I'm reading: "I hate this book, I hate this book..."  Normally, I don't hate books (exception)--I might find them less-than-interesting, but "hate" is a pretty strong word. 

What to do when you hate a book:
  • Stop reading! Different people have different rules of thumb about how long to read a book before they give up on it.  My rule is 50 pages, but I almost never give up on books.  That's probably because I'm pretty picky about what I read.*  I can't stop reading these two because they're both required for class.
  • Break your reading up into small bits of time.  If you choose this option, try to read at least a chapter per sitting, or you will NEVER get through the thing.  Again, I can't use this option because of reading deadlines.
  • Reward yourself.  Promise yourself an equal amount of good reading for each block of time you spend doing this type of reading.
  • Play some good music, loudly.
  • Brew coffee.
  • See below (photo by Andrewc)
By reading these two books at the same time, I have managed to isolate some qualities that will make me hate your writing:
  • Use lots of drawings that don't make sense (on the other hand, this does mean less reading per page).
  • Make random changes in typography for apparently no meaning (see above).
  • Make sure the ideas in one paragraph are completely unrelated to ideas in adjacent paragraphs.
  • Present lots of bold assertions with no evidence.
  • Use terminology that most people aren't familiar with, just for fun.  Make up words.
  • Constantly refer the reader to parts of other chapters, both before and after the chapter she is in.  This will reinforce your lack of organization for her.
  • Write about ideas that others have already written about, only better.  If you have original ideas, hide them well.
I'm afraid to continue.  If these books were fiction, I'd have another whole list, but that's another post.

*except that I'm reading some lists right now, yet another post...