----------

Selfe, Richard J., and Cynthia L. Selfe. "The Polotics of the Interface: Power and It's Electronic Contact Zones." College Composition and Communication 45.4 (1994): 480-504. JSTOR. Web.

Summary:  Basically the crux of this article is that technology, computers in particular, are by nature biased toward upper class, white collar, white Americans.  The computer interface on a Mac, for example, takes symbols from professional tools of corporate america (folders, documents, etc).  These are familiar symbols only to educated professionals from capitalist culture.

Additionally, most programs and interfaces have a default to (American) English language commands, which requires the user to think in terms of English regardless of their natural tongue.  This article notes that computers' hierarchical filing systems limit usage to those with a patriarchal understanding of the world.  (Scalar is apparently and exception to this since the paths and tags do not seem to require any hierarchical filing.  This is, incidentally, more difficult for me to wrap my brain around since it is a massive web instead of a neat bunch of folders organized based on content value.)  If we consider the computer interface as a text, then the text is a discriminatory one.  Humanist scholars can help limit the impact of this discrimination by noting its existence and by contributing to more inclusive design efforts.  

From this article, I was most intrigued by the following statement:

"We need to teach students and ourselves to recognize computer interfaces as non-innocent physical borders (between the regular world and the virtual world), cultural borders (between the haves and the have-nots), and linguistic borders" (495).  While I think that this article over-reached in some areas, it is important to note that operating systems and interfaces are created by people.  Since people are never without bias and cannot completely separate from their cultural reference point, it is important to note their creations will always be tainted by culture.  It is easy to take these biases at face value if you are of the same culture (U.S.) as those who designed the interface.  We must be conscious of the fact that not all users share the same cultural reference points and may see these as borders when learning the computer.

----------

Haas, Christina. Writing Technology: Studies on the Materiality of Literacy. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1996. Print.

Highlights:

*The Technology Question- The Materiality of writing- Writing takes up space, what are the cultural implications?

*Writing is a technology-don't confuse this use of "technology" with the idea of computers, this definition of "technology" is simply some innovation that improves quality of life (at first this definition "did not compute" for me)

From Merriam-webster.com:  tech·nol·o·gy noun \tek-ˈnä-lə-jē\: the use of science in industry, engineering, etc., to invent useful things or to solve problems

*Goody and Watt note that "when powerful concepts like good, truth, and justice are 'given physical reality' (17) through writing, they can become objects of analysis" (11).  This would imply that abstract concepts are not accessible in the physical space until they are committed to text.  I find this interesting in that it reminds me of Lacan's idea that the "Real" cannot be accessed by adults because of our language constraints to think about the "Real" and to attempt to describe the "Real".  It seems that Lacan would not agree with Goody and Watt.

*"Lev Vygotsky was interested . . . in how graphic symbol systems structure human thinking" (14).  Similarly, he notes how the graphic symbol systems are particular to a culture, making it a cultural tools as well.  I find this interesting because it doesn't seem like I think in terms of letters.  In fact, I frequently have thoughts that I struggle to express in words either on the page or orally.  That said, we accept road signs as necessary graphic symbol systems, so there must be some truth to his assertions.

*Haas & Neuwirth, 1993 and 3 inaccurate assumptions:  

The transparent technology assumption- writing is the same regardless of pen & paper or on the computer

The all-powerful technology assumption- the technology is somehow inevitably remaking culture

The assumption that technology is not our job

How does the materiality of writing change when technology chances (from paper & pen to laptop, as an example)?  (Besides greater eye-strain and less finger cramps?)  Technology historians, educators, and cognitive psychologists all have their own imperfect ways of analyzing this question.  Some studies emphasize the process of turning "ideas into visible language" (Flower & Hayes) with emphasis on the mental operation while others are more concerned with the physical act of this process.

Ancedote:  

My husband is an Historian for the Air Force.  The histories that his office compiles are usually several hundred pages when completed and are classified documents.  It used to be that when it was completed, they would print them out and store them in a safe for all eternity.  This materiality of writing is very tangible since there are dozens of safes holding classified histories for posterity and future reference.  As digital technology moved from valuing the printed product to one of conserving space, they began storing the information on disks in these safes.  You can imagine the decreased value of a history stored on an 8", 5.25", or  3.5" floppy disk in a safe; it is now virtually inaccessible in the year 2014!  There are few machines that could access this information if someone wanted to access it.  Further, at one base, they weren't allowed to burn a copy to a CD or store it on the shared drive.  You can imagine his heartache when he found out (after we had moved away) that his hard drive was wiped clean after he had left.  This meant that a year's worth of documents/writing/work were gone.  The materiality of this information is now nil.  It has been deleted.  One could argue that the act of compiling it somehow imprinted on my husband, but honestly, what good is information in one guy's head if it can't be accessed by others?

With regard to students, teaching, and technology, I am left thinking about the following image:

It isn't the technology (remember that technology is another word for tools) that is the learning objective for students.  The technology is a tool for accomplishing the learning objectives.