Complicating things
Prior to reading Eyman, I thought of text as just what you are looking at right now. Words written down somewhere with the intention of being read later. This definition could be applied to books, magazines, comic books, scripts, internet posts, direct messages, and anything else that required written communication. However, now that I have read Eyman’s piece I can see that that is a downright limiting definition. In fact in our modern digital world it is a definition that hurts far more than it helps.
Here comes Eyman
Eyman challenges the typical definition of text by instead arguing that the term refers to objects of “interpretive attention” around us. He specifically references speeches, writing, and non-linguistic practices. In this way, text becomes a more abstract term. It refers not only to the words in a piece, but also the piece itself.
Furthermore, Eyman points out that in the digital sphere the concept of intertextuality has radically changed. Texts are able to reference other ones with no difficulty, with one only needing to simply link to the other text. In this way we can reinterpret or change texts forever. The context around media is no longer frozen, but instead forever being altered.
Conclusion
As I often point out in my blog posts, the reason the digital world is such an interesting concept to study is that it is still brand new. In the grand scheme of things it is extremely young. Rhetoricians are still realizing how to adapt to the changes due to this technology. Nowhere is this more evident than in how we treat text. Particularly in the academic sphere, we are still attached to antiquated concepts like “Works Cited” pages. Considering the ease of modern digital technologies, these pages are a downright waste of time. We ought to all be utilizing the full capabilities of text, and stop allowing our own definitions to limit us so greatly.
Leave a Reply