Rather than directly addressing the prompt in the beginning, our group felt it necessary to define the terms we were working with, especially since a definition of "literacy" can so easily become contested. In addition to establishing our foundation, we wanted to address a question that came up in our group's discussion concerning the nature of networks; we got the feeling that Miller and Henkin assume that networks are digital, but we want to shy away from that assumption to broaden the concept of a network. With a broader notion of network, we can then draw some connections between networks and literacy.

 

What is network?

 

According to Miller and Henkin, social relations in a network are centered around a particular person rather than a physical location (199). Networks consist of five features. First, they are a-spatial; they are “based on connectivity [through technology] versus geographical proximity” (200). Second, they are based on choice rather than obligation. Network participants can decide not only what networks to join, but also when to join as well as when to leave a network. Third, networks “are a product of instrumentalism” (200). Networks, in other words, “exist because of some purpose, project, or goal” (200). Ties are “based on specialization and the fulfillment of certain roles or functions within one’s life” (201). Fourth, these ties are unstable because one must be instrumental - i.e. have some kind of worth - to the network. Fifth, networks are open-ended in that “[t]here are no limits to how many networks one can be a part of” (201). These networks are often maintained by acknowledging the presence of other members through phatic communication (204). “Phatic exchange is a term used to describe a communicative gesture that does not inform or exchange any meaningful information or facts about the world. Its purpose is a social one, to express sociability and maintain connections or bonds” (203). Phatic communication occurs on Facebook, for example, through “‘pokes,’ ‘likes,’ brief status updates, comments on status updates and gifts” (204). This kind of phatic communication suggests that networks (online networks, minimally) are more interest in contact than content (204).

 

Is a network automatically digital?

 

Drawing from Miller and Henkin, we contend that networks are not necessarily digital, though they do seem dependent upon technological developments. When discussing the factors that led to the growth of the postal network—geographical mobility, railroads, telegraphs, printing press, new techniques in paper production, corrective lenses—Henkin posits that, though “technology does not explain the transformation…it is hard to imagine a mass postal network without these technological developments” (n.p.). Similarly, Miller focuses on “the role of information and communication technology” (197) in contributing to the prevalence of networking, though he claims that networks were “well underway by the 1970s” (199). Though networks predate many of the digital technologies we’ve discussed so far this semester, they do appear to be enhanced and sustained by these technologies. For instance, applying to graduate programs or going on the academic job market generally requires more than face-to-face networking; this process is facilitated by a combination of face time and online communication with others in one’s network. Alternatively, one might use online communication with some members of one’s network more frequently when one regularly has face-to-face interactions with those members. For instance, we discussed how we engage with our colleagues more frequently on Facebook while we share the same workspace; once we leave that job, communication via Facebook occurs less frequently. Digital technologies can enhance networks that form offline, they can foster networks that exist almost solely online (such as MMOs), and they can facilitate communication between members across online/offline boundaries—boundaries that Miller argues are becoming increasingly blurred.

 

What is literacy?

 

Literacy avoids a simple, linear definition, and the term is instead concerned with cognitive, ideological, and social components. One of the major components of the definition is the ability to decode and encode symbol systems. These symbol systems include not only print alphabetic texts, but also digital, oral, numeric, and visual symbol systems. Beyond the acts of decoding and encoding, literacy additionally entails metacognitive abilities to critically think about and create meaning through these systems. As meaning is created through the interaction with symbol systems that are situated in specific social contexts, literacy is also concerned with the social discourse communities in which symbol systems are located. Literate people understand the social practices associated with using symbol systems, whether these systems exist in print on paper or in a digital Twitter tweet. While attaining literacy is initially dependent on an individual’s ability to decode and encode symbol systems, the more complex work of literacy resides in what individuals do with the culturally and socially nuanced information gained from the acts of decoding and encoding. Literacy is by no means a passive and static consumption and production of information, but is instead an active and dynamic social process of constructing knowledge. 

 

What is the role of network in literacy?

 

Working with M&H's five characteristics of networks and the multi-faceted definition of literacy above, the two concepts seem to be interrelated in different ways. It is important to note that their interrelation deviates from our prompt, which is phrased to imply that networks play a role in literacy, but not the other way around. So, what role does literacy play in networks? Beginning with the idea of literacy as the ability to encode, decode, and make meaning from symbol systems, literacy provides the semiotic materials, but we also need material materials to encode our messages: pencil/paper, computer/twitter account, paint/canvas, the list goes on (speech is excluded here, as the status of language itself as technology is tenuous, if not flat out wrong). Our materials provide the connectivity that Miller and Henkin call for in networks, but we also need an audience for our messages, and this is where networks play a role. The literacies we have and the technologies we use to apply them situate us in networks and/or discourse communities. The two are not synonymous; we have more control over the networks we join and leave, but I don't think many of us could have prevented being born into the discourse community of English. This agency to join and leave networks as we please is the key influence of networks on our literacy(ies). Each time we join a network, we may be required to understand the nuances of the discourse community, e.g., learning jargon, or we may need to learn to use a particular technology or platform, enhancing the literacies we may already have. On the other hand, the literacies we gain from other networks could hinder our learning in another network; for example, if the four of us were so entrenched in Twitter and accustomed to writing in 140 character spurts, we could have tried to write this blog post in tweets. However, given the network protocols of blog posts and graduate school, our Twitter literacies would have hindered in this context.