When discussing the phrase “Digital Literacy” Eyman explains in his writing that this is used as an umbrella term. Although Digital Literacy is necessary for Digital Rhetoric, many ideas can be labeled under this phrase. Eyman goes on to explain how Kress, an Author from the reading, wants a clear distinction between different literacies. From my understanding, Eyman can see Kress’s point of view. However forcing certain ideas or concepts under one title gives us limits. When thinking of Digital Literacy it is not a phrase I believe should have a cap on it. How one person may perceive the word digital compared to another may be two completely different things. This is why it is best to not have set labels because these concepts are interchangeable with one another.
Ulmer (an author introduced by Eyman) introduces the word “Electracy”. By definition electracy helps us see the difference between “media literacy”. This term is beneficial because it goes back to what I said before about allowing ideas to be interchangeable. Although the term Electracy is technically a label, the definition explains that it is a broad spectrum for ideas to fall under. For example, Eyman says “like digital literacy, Electracy is more of a method than a condition”. This shows that using the term electracy is more so something you practice rather than a label.
I liked Ulmer’s term, but I felt the most drawn to the definition from the National Council of Teachers of English. They are calling their term “21st century literacies” defined as “a collection of cultural and communicative practices”. I like this definition the most because I like to think of digital literacy as a melting pot of ideas. As time goes on, we are introducing more and more concepts from all over the world. Humans will always be creating Different forms of media as time goes on. So overall, it is hard to have one specific definition for a term that so many things fall under.
Leave a Reply