The relationship between networks, writing, and materiality is that all three components are needed to perform a functioning means of communication. In Hekin's article, he discusses the need for there to be an adequate network for a form of communication to be sent through. He also touches on the economic factors such as price and location that may hinder people in continuing communication. Most Americans who used personal mail to send letters were fairly wealthy and only sent them on special occasions. So, for poor people, one out of the three components was missing in order to have a functioning means of communicating. It is very hard for material to be continuously written if there is not a good means of getting material transferred across a network properly.
Networks would not be sustainable if writing and materiality were not in the picture. I really think that Bazerman focuses on this idea in his article. "The letter, in its directness of communication between two parties within a specific relationship in specific circumstances (all of which could be commented on directly), seemed to provide a flexible medium out of which many functions, relationships, and institutional practices might develp- making new uses socially intelligible at the same times as allowing the form of communication to develop in new directions)." This sentence really focuses on the fact that from something so simple as a letter still requires functionality and development. Writing and the content of the material, along with the need to communicate, really strengthens its networks
No comments:
Post a Comment