Journal Response #2

There exists a dependent relationship between networks, writing, and materiality. Without the appropriate social or professional circle, proper materials or mediums, and writing norms, we wouldn't be capable of communicating as well as we do. The clearest connection lies between writing and materiality, which seem to cease to exist in the absence of the other. Bazerman outlines this relationship well when he writes, "Even when letters were no longer recited by the messenger the goal of projecting one’s presence through the writing remained." This quote clearly describes why we write to convey our ideas, but also we use letters to write on. Letters, when properly written, can have the same lasting effect on the reader, even without a vocal delivery. Writing and networks have an important, but less clear relationship. Writing and networks are also essential to one another because without a network, we would have no one to write to or with, but without writing it would be difficult to communicate effectively within a group. Networks are useful because of the social familiarity and understanding, which makes it easier, writes Bazerman, "Because the sociality of texts is often a matter of implicit social understanding embedded in our recognition of genres that shape communicative activity, reading and writing have regularly been mistaken as autonomous processes of pure form and meaning, separate from social circumstances, relationships, and actions." Networks and materiality are simply connected because people within the same network are likely to be using similar materials. For example, when the cost to send a letter dropped to a record low, "Writing a letter had been transformed into a fundamentally affordable activity" (Henkin).  When more people became capable of writing letters, social networks expanded, which meant more people could communicate using one material-- letters.