| PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION 1997 |
Hypertext and Education: (Post?)structural Transformations
Barbara J. Duncan
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
In an article about changing technology and the growth of the problem-solving business, The New York Times hit upon an emerging sentiment concerning technology: "It is almost a truism: Technology creates as many problems as it solves."[1] The development of new technologies and their application in educational settings is bound to bring about a whole new set of possibilities and problems. One of the new technologies to currently challenge philosophers of education can be found in the rise of electronic text or hypertext.[2] Hypertext is finding its way into many different aspects of our lives from the classroom to home, to work. This new mode of presenting information promises to change the way we read as well as the way we pursue and understand knowledge, and because it is becoming increasingly used for educational purposes, it seems imperative that we carefully consider some of these epistemological changes.When the web is discussed, it is frequently described as poststructuralist due to its non-directed, nonlinear presentation of information. In educational terms, this is presumably important since it tends to eliminate hierarchical dualistic distinctions and leads students away from narrow and essentialist views of knowledge. A corollary to this is that hypertext blurs distinctions between authors and readers; it moves the focus away from the authority of the author, suggesting instead that multiple interpretations are equally possible and viable. Overall, then, the assertions about the web seem to imply that it encourages the development of new ways of knowing, and turns us away from unitary conceptions of knowledge. I want to explore this claim: that hypertext or the world wide web encourages users to think differently, to break out of traditional reading practices - that it can promote poststructuralist[3] thought. In addition, I want to examine the question of whether we would want to break out of certain aspects of traditional reading practices if we could.
Probably the most outspoken and widely cited author on this topic is George P. Landow - one of the first academics to publish an exhaustive work on the nature of the convergence of hypertext and critical theory. In his work titled Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology, he writes:
we must abandon conceptual systems founded upon ideas of center, margin, hierarchy, and linearity and replace them with ones of multilinearity, nodes, links, and networks. Almost all parties to this paradigm shift, which marks a revolution in human thought, see electronic writing as a direct response to the strengths and weaknesses of the printed book. This response has profound implications for literature, education, and politics.[4]Landow argues that hypertext enables a paradigm shift, a move toward a new epistemology and a move toward poststructuralism. Drawing on Barthes and Foucault, he writes that they both "conceive of text in terms of networks and links."[5] He also notes that hypertext systems mimic Derrida's emphasis on discontinuity.[6]
Michael Peters and Colin Lankshear describe the poststructuralist quality of hypertext in reference to critical literacy. In a bold statement, they claim that "the hypertextual virtual reality of the world wide web....gives rise to the notion of the virtual text, new forms of interactivity, and emergent discourses which collapse informal communication and traditional forms of scholarship."[7]
Nicholas Burbules and Thomas Callister note that Roland Barthes's book, S/Z is considered to be one of the theoretical precursors to hypertext because Barthes's book creates parallel texts; the story is a combination of small separate units which can be cross-referenced or read in a number of unique ways, thus decentering the importance of any one story line or interpretation.[8] Burbules and Callister argue that the structure of hypertext systems is poststructuralist in a similar manner due to its rhizomatic structure - a structure with no discernible center:
While we began with the idea of a root, or "primary text," from which all other references were merely extensions and addenda, we found that very quickly the multidimensional structure of hypertext puts all references and texts at a common level, no one of which can claim a priori centrality, but only a relative centrality, given a particular purpose.[9]Burbules and Callister claim that "hypertexts actively invite and facilitate multiple, alternative readings of the same material."[10] In addition, they suggest that "more than just a new way of organizing information, hypertext influences the information it organizes...Form and content become interdependent."[11]
A well known hypertext is the electronic short story Afternoon by Michael Joyce in which the reader chooses the path the story takes.[12] The plot can be altered in a number of ways given the preferences of the reader, and scenes swap significance as characters are divorced and die in different orders. The story gains new meaning upon each reading. No longer does the author set the final script and lay out a linear sequence of events; the reader captures some of the authority and the "text" avoids presenting an original context and meaning.
THREE CLAIMS These arguments connecting the web to poststructuralism make many different kinds of assertions, but the overall treatment of hypertext as an embodiment of poststructuralist theory tends to fall into three main categories or claims. The first claim suggests that the web is derived from poststructuralist ideas; the second claim asserts that the web is poststructuralist; and the third claim contends that the web promotes poststructuralist ways of thinking. Many who debate this topic tend to make all three assertions at the same time, but I want to suggest that the real issue can be found in the third claim - that hypertext promotes poststructuralist thought. Only the third claim harbors real social, political, and educational consequences. Nevertheless, I think it is helpful to explore each of these claims to a certain extent in order to develop a rich notion of what hypertext is and does.
The argument that declares that the web is derived from poststructuralist thought can be countered by an appeal to history. The idea behind the web was first mentioned by H.G. Wells in 1938 as a kind of world brain or encyclopedia,[13] but the first person to really work on developing such a system was Vannevar Bush, a leading engineer and technical consultant during World War II. Bush was interested in designing a machine that could be used to amplify the cognitive abilities of humans, to work as a memory aid, thus the name "Memex."[14] This idea was, if anything, directly a product of the post World War II fascination with thinking machines and cybernetics. It may be that the idea for hypertext was generated alongside those thinkers working on notions of deconstruction and nonlinearity but I think that, more correctly, hypertext is a product of modernist ideas. Hypertext was originally meant to be a model of the way the mind thinks - a better, more efficient model, not a tool for deconstruction.
As to the claim of whether the web is poststructuralist, it is questionable whether any physical artifact could by itself embody poststructuralist thought. As Mary Hocks notes, "The underlying concept of a technology that literally embodies some larger theoretical process is actually antithetical to deconstructive theories themselves, because it assumes that language can be 'matched' to some physical object."[15] That is to say, the idea of poststructuralism itself runs counter to any kind of physical embodiment since language cannot be neatly mapped on to physical artifacts. Hypertext is non linear, but this is all one can really claim.
Furthermore, the web does have structure; it is by no means absent of form. Its structure is one of nodes and links; there may be alternative routes, but there are still pathways and structures and thus fixed interpretations of knowledge. Perhaps all that we can really say is that hypertext moves away from linear modes of organization, but this is a rather weak statement, and one which does not necessarily pull us any closer to poststructuralism.
Even if one is willing to agree that the web is poststructuralist to a certain degree, or moving toward a poststructuralist state, there is no real compelling argument to suggest that, for instance, novels written in hypertext represent any real break with previous forms of literary representation. In describing the hypertext Afternoon, Espen J. Aarseth writes:
Afternoon does not represent a break with the novel. On the contrary, it finds its place in a long tradition of experimental literature in which one of the main strategies is to subvert and resist narrative. The novel ("the new"), from Cervantes to the Roman Nouveau, has always been anti-genre, and Afternoon is but its latest conformation.[16]As Aarseth claims, the very meaning of the word novel is the idea of newness, of experimentation. Hypertext may indeed offer a better technology for producing such kinds of literature that interweave many different layers of storyline, but it does not lead to the idea that now, because of hypertext, we are able to create poststructuralist narratives. These kinds of experimental rhizomatic narratives have always already been in existence.
The claim that suggests that hypertext encourages poststructuralist thinking is, however, more crucial for education than the previous two arguments. New forms of technology profoundly influence moral, social and political commitments. As Langdon Winner puts it: "technologies are not merely aids to human activity, but also powerful forces acting to reshape that activity and its meaning."[17] Others have also convincingly argued that technology is not neutral and that we should pay careful attention to the ways in which technology is used, particularly in educational settings.[18] I will take up an brief exploration of some of the ways hypertext may influence education in the next four sections.
EXPANDING THE CANON It does seem plausible at first glance that a collection of information organized in a hypertextual manner might serve to shake up traditional ways of thinking about the value and relative importance of information. For example, when searching for topics on feminism, traditional means of research would suggest questioning your advisor, using the Library of Congress headings, and perhaps browsing a few shelves and following up the footnotes of others. Given a format that would access any and all different kinds of research on feminism would presumably lessen the impact or importance any one source would have over another. Thus students would have to rethink their categories and adjust their worldviews more often to incorporate a much more diverse canon.
But I am ultimately not convinced hypertext will expand or change the canon to a significant degree in the near future. Even though there is much more information on the internet than one might ever find in a library, there are still some very clear distinctions and hierarchies for organizing the information. The web is simply a reflection of the non web world, and in fact seems to be reproducing and multiplying facets of the "real" world at an alarming rate. As Peters and Lankshear remark, "it is entirely possible for cyberspace and the digital text to be 'domesticated' by treating them inside the same presumptions that undergird modernist institutionalized spaces."[19] The web is an artifact embedded in a culture; any changes that may happen will occur quite slowly over an extended period of time. In the meantime, representation, and meaning-making will continue as before without any real threat or disturbance, although this is not to say that meanings will remain unchanged.
The web is a new media and will inevitably influence the ranking and organization of information, but the idea of the path of least resistance suggests that the web will simply transfer ranking systems from the non web world. For example, when a site is listed as part of the American Philosophical Association as opposed to Tim's philosophy page, there are obviously some very clear distinctions being made. Given the sheer number of web sites, it is imperative in fact that this be done, however, this will mean that traditional ways of understanding, organizing, and classifying information will remain largely in place. While it may be easier for works to become accepted into the "canon," there will still be a canon. Those who already have power and access will be the first and the most skilled at presenting their information on the web. Peters and Lankshear note that "new information and communications technologies already show clear signs of being treated like any other texts within the same spaces of educational enclosure."[20] As with other attempts to shake up the canon by simply "adding in," the fact that the web offers more of everything does not introduce a significant threat to more traditional forms of literature, research, and knowledge.
NARRATIVE AND CLOSURE Hypertext may actually do a better job at creating the illusion that the knowledge presented is above question. The fancy formats, clear looking diagrams and vast quantities of sources may even drive students toward a more passive acceptance of the knowledge presented. Despite their enthusiasm over the possibilities of hypertext, Burbules and Callister note that,
the very virtues of hypertext - complexity and comprehensiveness - make implicit authorial/organizational choices all the more essential for the usability of text, and yet all the more difficult for the reader to detect. Significant absences, silences, or exclusions in hypertexts are unlikely to be seen or noticed by the vast majority of their users.[21]Hypertext systems encode meanings within their very structure. That is, readers derive meaning from the nature of the links or connections. Terence Harpold observes that "if two lexias are linked, then we believe that they are related in some way....Like readings of other kinds of texts, readings of hypertexts will always be sustained by a pledge of meaningful resolution that appears to be anchored in the artifact."[22] In other words, we assume a connection in knowledge if there is a physical connection on the page or in the hypertext. This suggests that we must be careful when reading and writing hypertexts since it cannot always be surmised what the connections are and what degree of importance they should be given. But this also highlights the fact that hypertext does not necessarily lead to the deconstruction of narrative - we read in narratives even if they are not explicitly laid out for us. Furthermore, implicit narratives and hidden meanings built into the structure of hypertext will probably remain concealed.
But one the most engaging characteristics of hypertext and the web is the ease at which graphics and text can be presented, and the ease at which layers of meaning can be embedded in multiple forms of overlapping media. The juxtaposition of different forms of representation is a crucial aspect of the web, and one which allows for refreshing new forms of art and literature as well as other forms of research. This form of knowledge representation might prove to be one of the ways in which the web can offer more than just text online; these juxtapositions could in fact be educationally significant. The multiple connections that can be achieved with a mixing of media may very well serve to bolster the possible associations that can be attached to any one topic, thus broadening and widening perspectives and working to eliminate disciplinary boundaries.
It is my contention, however, that students also need to experience closure. There is something to be said for having students concentrate and focus on a single piece of literature or theory and to try to come to a close understanding of the piece without worrying about multiple interpretations. In fact, according to some theorists, achieving some kind of narrative closure is crucial for reading comprehension as well as for the enjoyment of reading. As J. Yellowlees Douglas remarks, closure is the "single entity that confers cohesion and significance on narratives in a way that strongly suggests that the experience of narrative closure numbers among the principal pleasures of reading...closure both prompts and enables us to read."[23] Hypertext stories that attempt to unsettle fundamental assumptions of closure and narrative may be useful for some purposes, but may have the effect of removing any discernible sense of motivation one might have for reading. It seems to me that hypertext stores such as Afternoon would ultimately be frustrating for students. While the initial fascination of the technology might hold their interest for a while, the inevitable never-ending story which doesn't come to a real or satisfying conclusion might not sustain interest and might easily pass from their memory as do other unconnected bits of knowledge and experience. It also seems that hypertext feeds into the kind of quick and dirty culture with which we have become so accustomed. Similar to news stories which provide shallow and contradictory details and other sound-bite-like sources of information, hypertext also threatens to encourage students to skim over the surface of information, never reaching the rich and complex texture of knowledge. Perhaps hypertext will be good for general introductions to broad areas of knowledge, but it seems to discourage the idea of careful and close analysis.
BROWSING AND TOURISM But what about ways of searching for information: the ability to browse, to play, to be a tourist; does hypertext free up the possibilities for new types of thinking? Does following pathways without any clear direction, for instance, encourage thinking in new ways? I suggest rather, that it may simply allow us to pursue our old ways of thinking more efficiently, as we tend to follow only those pathways that interest us. Dewey has refered to this as a problem with interest,[24] but it is also related to the problem of education in general as in Meno's paradox: That is, how do we know what we don't know? - How do we learn? I argue that the web will allow us to fixate more productively on the things we are familiar with because of the nature of the web.
For instance, when we browse the stacks, or go to a book store, we are able to put our hands on books, to glance at different shelves, and to wander into unfamiliar territory for fun without feeling as if we are wandering into the unknown. We are some place physically, and dealing with real objects that can be opened, closed, and placed back on shelves. Hypertext allows for a kind of wandering, but it is for the most part like wandering with blinders on. Burbules and Callister describe the uneasy feeling of being lost in cyberspace:
A major concern in the literature on hypertext is with the experience of novice readers getting "lost in hyperspace," following a meandering path of associations into the hypertext field, then finding that like Hansel and Gretel they cannot retrace their steps back. In some cases, the sheer volume of information and the number and flexibility of pathways that are available simple become overwhelming.[25]The web offers many different pathways, none of which necessarily lead anywhere, much less where we might want to go, and it provides no real navigational aid. Furthermore, the web offers so many options that it is overwhelming to try to decide which ones to follow. There is a point at which students reach satiation. Browsing the web is not always very productive due to the vast amounts of information, the vast amounts of inessential material, and the blind method for wandering which we are forced to adopt, and therefore can be very distracting from an educational standpoint.
THE DEATH OF THE AUTHOR But what about the claim that the web will redefine what it means to be a reader and an author? On the one hand, hypertext and the world wide web will still retain clear distinctions between readers and authors. For example, the Gutenberg Project, a company that puts books online, has been in a constant struggle with publishers about copyright laws. It is true that more people will be able to put something on the web and call themselves authors, but this will mean that the idea of being an author will change only slightly. As we can see with many online journals, intellectual property is still very closely guarded, and the processes of reviewing and assessing still remain very much in place.
On the other hand, it does seem as though the focus away from narrative forms, and the move toward multiple voices will lead to a kind of "death of the author" in which more emphasis will be placed on readers. When reading stories like Afternoon which "progress" according to the readers' choices, blind though they may be, readers will by necessity have to become more active. I am convinced that we think as we write - that we need to communicate in order to understand and learn. As Peters and Lankshear note, "Readers "write" their meanings in processes of active engagement with texts.[26] If hypertexts manage to engage us more actively, this may move us in an educationally significant direction.
At the same time, however, I feel that the trend towards multiple readings can at times lapse into a dangerous kind of relativity. As Jo Anne Pagano points out, postmodernism questions authorial intent, but at the same time, we need to be able to speak with authority.[27] In other words, giving up a notion of self, or authorship is a high a price to pay for certain groups who have a stake in political and social progressivism. The blurring of clear lines between authors and readers lessens the impact of years of traditional means of education - the idea that education is simply the transmission of information - but it also moves us toward relativistic epistemological positions. The answer inevitably lies in accepting the tension and holding on to contradictory positions, as Pagano suggests, without overly extolling the virtues of denying authorial intent.
CONCLUSION We may indeed be moving toward a more fluid format for information, but to suggest that it is an embodiment of poststructuralist thought is misleading. Hypertext is no more than a format change - a way to link and layer various texts, images, and sounds. A fellow skeptic, Victor Raskin remarks:
hypertext as a computational facility does not help one discover those links and connections, or determine the substance of the hypertext stacks, which still need to be written. All hypertext does is to present a format, a methodology, a tool for recording the already-established links.[28]This is not to say, however, that I think these claims about the structure and organization of information are unimportant, rather these issues are crucial and can just as easily involve political and moral decisions disguised as decisions about how to present information, but I think that if hypertext does change the way we think, it will do so in very subtle ways over great lengths of time, and it may be a large disapointment for those enthusiastic educators who uncritically adopt this technology for classroom use.
But we still need to question the educational outcomes of hypertext because it will inevitably change how we process information and create knowledge. The need for closure to enable reading comprehension is crucial and it is not clear whether hypertext will encourage the kind of reading that is necessary, the kind of close reading where students must focus and take time to extract plausible meaning from difficult passages. In this age of fast living, hypertext promises fast information, but this is not necessarily educational.
On the other hand, hypertext does enable a new form of knowledge - one that promises to facilitate the establishment of connections between different forms of representation. The ease at which various sorts of information can be connected may serve to reduce interdisciplinary boundaries and help students to draw connections between multiple types of knowledge forms. At the same time, however, the move toward multiple voices and the death of the author removes possibilities for speaking from positions of authority - a necessary condition for educational and political endeavors.
Overall, the decision of whether to use hypertext for educational purposes is not an easy one; it entails some losses as well as some gains, but this is exactly why philosophers of education need to take up the issue of how technological artifacts reproduce and create social and political practices. As Winner puts it: "What is needed is an interpretation of the ways, both obvious and subtle, in which everyday life is transformed by the mediating role of technical devices."[29]
***For a response to this essay, see Rud.
[1] The New York Times, 2 Sept 1996, 21.[2] Hypertext, or the web (I use these terms interchangeably), is roughly a presentation of images and text connected together by common links where the links work in a similar manner to footnotes, but instead of being a dead end, they can bring you to another document, another place ad infinitum. The web is also designed so that even those with a small amount of computer knowledge can construct a simple web page by themselves and construct themselves into the connections of other web pages.
[3] I acknowledge the problem with referring to poststructuralism as a unitary category. There are many different kinds of poststructuralism, so rather than claiming allegiance to any one notion, I offer a minimal definition here that highlights some of the more popular and commonly understood characteristics.
[4] George P. Landow, Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 2-3.
[5] Ibid., 3.
[6] Ibid., 9.
[7] Michael Peters and Colin Lankshear, "Critical Literacy and Digital Texts" Educational Theory 46, no. 1 (Winter 1996): 61.
[8] Nicholas C. Burbules, and Thomas A. Callister, "Knowledge at the Crossroads: Some Alternative Futures of Hypertext Learning Environments," Educational Theory 46, no. 1 (Winter 1996): 34.
[9] Ibid., 29-30.
[10] Ibid., 28.
[11] Ibid., 3.
[12] Jay David Bolter, "Literature in the Electronic Writing Space," in Literacy Online: The Promise (and Peril) of Reading and Writing with Computers, ed. Myron C. Tuman (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992), 25.
[13] H.G. Wells "World Brain," quoted in Nyce and Kahn, From Memex to Hypertext.
[14] Vannevar Bush, "As We May Think," Atlantic Monthly 176, no. 1 (1945).
[15] Mary Hocks, "Technotropes of Liberation: Reading Hypertext in the Age of Theory" (PhD. Diss., University of Illinois, 1994), 69.
[16] Espen J. Aarseth, "Nonlinearity and Literary Theory," in Hyper/Text/Theory, ed. George P. Landow (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1994), 71.
[17] Langdon Winner, The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1986), 6.
[18] See Winner, The Whale and the Reactor; David Blacker, "Allowing Educational Technologies to Reveal: A Deweyan Perspective," Educational Theory 43, no. 3 (Spring 1993): 181-94; and C.A. Bowers The Cultural Dimensions of Educational Computing.
[19] Peters and Lankshear, "Critical Literacy and Digital Texts," 67.
[20] Ibid., 53.
[21] Burbules and Callister, "Knowledge at the Crossroads," 27.
[22] Terence Harpold, "Conclusions," in Landon, Hyper/text/theory, 194.
[23] J. Yellowlees Douglas, "How Do I Stop This Thing?": Closure and Indeterminacy in Interactive Narratives," in Landon, Hyper/text/theory, 161.
[24] John Dewey, Democracy and Education (1916; reprint, New York: Macmillan, 1944), 351.
[25] Burbules and Callister, "Knowledge at the Crossroads," 41.
[26] Peters and Lankshear, "Critical Literacy and Digital Texts," 66.
[27] Jo Anne Pagano, "Matters of the Mind," in Critical Conversations in Philosophy of Education, ed. Wendy Kohli (New York: Routledge, 1995), 340-54.
[28] Victor Raskin, "Naturalizing the Computer: English Online," in Literacy Online, 208.
[29] Winner, The Whale and the Reactor, 9.