Fahrenheit Four-Fifty…Facebook?

Choose Social Networking…Because Nobody Reads Anymore?

While sitting in the Student Union on Wednesday I overheard a conversation among a group of girls, who I assumed were undergraduate students.  Their conversation made me fear for the future of our society.  My ears perked up immediately when I heard those infamous words that made me cringe:  “nobody reads books anymore”.  I could not believe my ears.  Sure, the consensus among many of us as we move toward an age of digital literacy is that text will soon refer to words on a screen as opposed the printed words on a page; however, my belief has always been that we, as a society, would swap out one form of text for the other.  Instead we, as a society, are allowing the printed page to become obsolete in favor a more efficient form of information construction, acquisition, and distribution.  The increased use of social networking sites will, without a doubt, change the way we create, receive, and disseminate information because these sites “serve as performative spaces that might help students understand the postmodern logics of identity construction” (37, 38).  This new medium may entail that the foundational hierarchies of knowledge within our society may come undone; however, it also means that it will assist in the development of new foundational hierarchies of knowledge in which we create new societal norms. 

My experience from earlier this week…coupled with my reading of Presnky, led me to consider Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 as I contemplated the future of literacy among members of society.  Where indeed will they get their information from?  Published in 1953, Bradbury’s book predicted a future of American society in which books were outlawed and firemen burned the houses that contained them.  In a 2007 interview, Ray Bradbury contended that his book has been misinterpreted as a protest against censorship, when in reality it spoke to how the advent of new media (i.e., television) affected literature, and destroyed interest in reading.  The opinion of the young lady from my anecdote demonstrates that our present day society is not far off from Bradbury’s prediction. 

In an attempt to reconcile Prensky’s contentions that digital natives prefer flashy text, random access, instant gratification, and frequent rewards with their apparent value of future content (technology, ethics, politics, sociology, language, etc.), I once again advocate for openness regarding the significance of new technology as an educative tool.  It is becoming commonplace in my blog to continuously showcase the ways in which technological nuances can be used as a curricular and instructional tool.  How many times will I explain that when framed and implemented in a way conducive to exploration and discovery, technology and new media (i.e., social networking) can be used to facilitate student learning?  At this point I cannot stress any more the importance of choosing a tool based on its appropriateness for achieving a task or completing an objective.  Some readers may think I am suggesting a dumbing down of curricular and instructional tools; that instead of asking students (and society) to rise to the challenge of meeting traditional scholastic expectations with regard to mediums through which knowledge acquisition occurs, that I am asking them to use unintelligible methods to do their homework.  Far from it; I am simply suggesting that we can frame/construct the use of technology, and social networking as tools that encourage critical thinking among our students. 

The fact is that many digital natives are already constructing their identities via technology and social networking sites.  These digital natives are treating identity construction as a performative act, in which the construction of their identities is conditioned by technology, and occurs through technology.  Technology makes concepts real and meaningful for digital natives, including the concept of self/identity.  Therefore, technology constructs meaning and realness for digital natives.

In keeping with Bradbury’s prediction – society should neither render a tool/skill obsolete, nor replace it with something that retards society’s ability to appreciate knowledge/information.  We cannot simply buy in to the snippet, status, and sound bite culture into which society is devolving.  What’s more, Bradbury contends (and rightly so) that it is not the state, but people who are actually the ideological [state] apparatus.  The state institutionalizes societal norms, but the citizen takes what begins as a habit of thought and creates a cultural habit or ideology in the establishment of a collective identity/shared community (Clark). 

 

Side Note:  Please check out Amy Boyle Johnston's (2007) piece about the truth behind Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451:  Fahrenheit 451: Misinterpreted