On Becoming Hypertext

“On Becoming A Woman: Pedagogies of the Self”

Susan Romano suggests future historians will conclude we taught multiple identities online because of the apparent fictional nature of how we identify ourselves in these technological spaces (249). Her investigation begins by suggesting computer classrooms “induce students to take on alternative identities” (249).

How many identities do you have (online or otherwise)? Are they overt or secretive?

Teaching in electronic environments is problematic, as we’ve seen. Some students won’t be able to log on or don’t have the proper access, passwords, codes, hardware, software, etc. Others prefer to not take part because of the difficulty, or perceived difficulty of engaging with the technology. These students may not have as much experience with computers and don’t want to appear stupid to their classmates. Thus, Romano suggests that teaching interactively happens by “chance” (via Aristotle) or “cookery” (via Plato) (251). Regardless of which word you prefer, the point is that learning in these environments is haphazard, for now.

One fascinating aspect of Romano’s article is the inclusion of transcripts of online conversations. Lester Faigley’s brief discussion about the use of pseudonyms offers a foundation for Romano to build her discussion. Then, Romano questions the motives of using new technologies and if the goal is merely “constructing, reconstructing, altering, and fictionalizing the self” or showing students choices on how to use discourse online in order to make the environment more meaningful (255). Her position here is not just explaining the technology and how to use it, but rather, what impact does its use have on all users.

Identity becomes a main point in this essay, especially how it relates to gender and online interaction. The use of pseudonyms, as Romano points out, “may dramatize for students the argument that gender is a cultural and linguistic construct” (255).

Any one can become anyone online.
Does writing online empower you? If so, how?

If we look at the later transcript of students, how does gender play a role? How do the women react to the men? and vice-versa?

Gabriela makes an important point that I would like to further discussion on: “It is sort of hard to go up and talk to someone, especially a guy, without them thinking you want something or that you are interested” (Romano 261).

Is that true? Defend your answer. What about men approaching women? Is the impression that Gabriela provides work in the reverse as well? What about same-gender interactions?

Please reread pages 260-263 of this article and pay careful attention to the various interactions between the genders. (We will be discussing this section on the MOO on Tuesday.)

Romano offers us a reality check in the difficulty controlling and the pedagogical challenges of using online materials, but I think her goal is to advance the use and method of teaching online. What ideas do you have that could help fellow teachers in a computer classroom?

When this article is boiled down, it addresses the gender dynamics of a technological classroom and how readers can use the examples to develop strategies to cope with the inherent concerns that arise within the confines (or lack thereof) of the virtual setting.

Before viewing these next videos, consider the following questions:

How is gender constructed?
How do you construct gender?

Now watch Part II, pay particular attention to the very end:



I encourage you to write some comments here.

__________________________
“Writing Multiplicity: Hypertext and Feminist Textual Politics”

To start off (this article), please realize I’m overemphasizing the point I gathered from this article. So please, Stumble along with me.

This article initially confused me. One thing I had to understand better was, what is hypertext?

Hypertext is somewhat like a create-your-own adventure. Nevertheless, “hypertext’s ability to grant this control to the reader raises the potentiality that many paths, and the positions they express, will never be heard” (LeCourt and Barnes 65). You notice the number of links within this post. You are certainly welcome to click every single one, or not. You have control.

As I read (and reread and reread) this piece, I remained a ball of confusion. But finally I had an epiphany.

Donna LeCourt and Luann Barnes explain part of their argument: gender is so ingrained in how we understand everything, so writers must navigate a discursive community (audience) by taking on the role of that community—writers must, then, meet readers on their porch—when they are ready.

LeCourt and Barnes suggest that “becoming aware of this gendering process encourages the writer to express silenced or marginal positions by highlighting for the reader how such positions have been silenced by discursive norms” (57).

One of the concerns raised by LeCourt and Barnes is that we as writers are so comfortable and conditioned to “write with one voice, and that voice silences all others” that we have no experience with multiple voices in our writing (67).

What implications does this have on us as teachers?

The authoritative, academic voice reinforces the phallocentric voice that LeCourt and Barnes (and we) are trying to escape.

I had to read this piece three times to actually understand it (I think). What I’m trying to say is that this article is deep. One may need a network to understand it. And hopefully, my experiential explanation is not too confusing.

By pointing out each views individual context—which blunts a phallocentric interpretation—texts can play off of each other, which is deconstructive (and reconstructive) in nature.

We must recognize our position is actually several positions (or views) because we have “multiplicity of the subject [which] allows one to write from a variety of positions simultaneously” (LeCourt and Barnes 58). Each different position provides a learning opportunity.

If we see ourselves as static, this position reinforces the male dominated discourse. While in this “position of authority”, other readings, views, or interpretations are silenced (LeCourt and Barnes 58).

Part of my struggle with this article was my phallocentric view. I became frustrated when I didn’t understand what the article was suggesting—I fought the multiplicity because I’ve been trained by the academy to see the view and not multiple views.

This dislocation—of hypertext—deconstructs our thinking and forces us to view other perspectives regardless if we accept or deny them. LeCourt and Barnes affirm, “hypertext seemingly allows, indeed forces, a writer to become more aware of her multiplicity” (59).

Digression: Some would argue I’m not mentioning the feminist aspects of this article; however, although I consider myself a feminist, I resist the classic divisions created by the label of feminist (not by the academy but rather by those unaware of the term’s meaning). Far too often in my experience, when gender is presented as a foundation of discussion, the other sex(es) become defensive, thus shutting down constructive discourse. This concern becomes magnified in a classroom of students still learning about themselves.

As a teacher, I have several different choices to make in the classroom in terms of preparation for, instruction within, and reflection after each and every class period.

To what degree does hypertext impact your learning? Are printed materials (books, newspapers, etc.) fading away?

One problem that LeCourt and Barnes ask is can we enact hypertext? One way is to visualize a hypertext as a figure. Then, perhaps, we can envision a way to maneuver around it. But we can also envision the future of hypertext.

“Although hypertext can highlight the interactivity of multiple positions, it cannot in itself create an awareness of those positions” (LeCourt and Barnes 69). And this you can see clearly in my presentation. The awareness of hyperality can only be achieved by you—the creator and consumer of meaning.

Part of my problem in generating this work was the speed of my abilities. My technological skills were too elementary—too slow—for my understanding. I needed more speed to truly hypertextualize the speed of my thoughts. Even now, you, my readers, can surely see the hypered nature of this post. But I do not fear it—I embrace it.

One more thing: I encourage us all to generate a proposal or several…

Works Cited

LeCourt, Donna, and Luann Barnes. “Writing Multiplicity: Hypertext and Feminist Textual Politics.” Computers and Composition 16 (1999): 55-71.

Romano, Susan. “On Becoming A Woman: Pedagogies of the Self.” Passions, Pedagogies, and the 21st Century Technologies. Eds. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe. Logan: Utah State UP, 1999. 249-67.

Namaste.