the autonomy of technology and language

By Kelly Moody
After reading much of Ong's text, "Orality and Literacy", i cannot help but to keep thinking about the future of literacy, the future of our communication or reflection on the world. In his book, he discusses the transformation that occurs in our consciousness when the way our language is mediated changes from an oral form to a written form because of the way our relationship to it changes. When our relationship to our language changes, our relationship to our world changes, our language is a reflection of how we see the world, and how we place ourselves in the world. So changing our communication/expression from a primarily oral-based foundation to a primarily literate-based foundation has profound implication for how we see ourselves in the world, how we see and understand the world itself.
So what about the autonomy of technology (Ellul)? If technology allowed us to transform language thus far, to transform consciousness thus far, what does this mean for the future of our consciousness? The autonomy of technology as explained by Jacques Ellul, is a discussion of the infinitude of technology, that it dominates our reality to such a great degree that it will perpetuate itself forever in the future and we will be dragged along in the process. It is obvious that it has changed us thus far, a pen and paper is completely technology. Imagine how much those insturments have transformed how we understand ourselves, our world, each other. Now we have computers. Now we write less, and type more. We talk to our friends online because it is easier, we respond to each other more and more on this objective literate level. Our psychic energy flowing between each other when we talk orally face to face is being pushed out, we would rather objectify our words to each other. When we type what we think or feel, we can eliminate something that would inhibit us if we spoke in person, though we lose something vital, something human in the process. We've become to find it efficient to have a delayed kind of communication. Emails, text messages, instant messaging, facebook or myspace wall messages, chat rooms, etc.
Aside from transforming our communication from oral to virtual, what about the difference between written and typed language? Teachers prefer typed papers, yet getting a typed birthday note is not quite the same as getting a written birthday note. Some of that personal energy is still there,and when it is typed, it feels so cold and computerized. Is typing all of our papers computerizing us? Depersonalizing us? Objectifying our minds? Even the virtual language is changing from the handwritten language. An article i saw today, sparked my thoughts on this evolution-- It discusses how vital handwritting is to learning, the actual act or experience of writing letter, forming words, versus typing, where the act of creating one letter over another is the same. Schools are emphasizing handwriting less and less, and many experts are saying this should change.
"Predictions of handwriting's demise didn't begin with the computer; they date back to the introduction of the Remington typewriter in 1873. But for at least a generation, penmanship has seemed a quaint and, well … schoolmarmish subject to be emphasizing. Now, backed by new research, educators are trying to wedge it back into the curriculum. After all, no one has suggested that the invention of the calculator means we don't have to teach kids how to add, and spelling is still a prized skill in the era of spell check. If we stop teaching penmanship, it will not only hasten the dreaded day when brides acknowledge wedding gifts by e-mail; the bigger danger is, they'll be composed even more poorly than they already are."