Journal Response 2

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 

Journal #2

The relationship between networks and writing is shown in Bazerman’s “Letters and the Social Grounding of Differentiated Genres.” In this chapter, Bazerman makes the argument that letters have essentially always been a vital material in the circulation of thoughts and ideas throughout a network. To Bazerman, letters served as lasting evidence of someone’s thoughts. “Even when letters were no longer recited by the messenger, the goal of projecting one’s presence through the writing remained.” Letters have the ability to circulate throughout several different networks without the presence of the original writer. The presence of the writer doesn’t lessen the value or the message of the letter; the letter is able to stand on its own.

According to Hekin, content is heavily dependent on the network it is traveling through. Historically different socioeconomic groups have relied on different forms of communications. For example, when mail originated, it was fairly expensive so only the wealthy could afford to communicate through this network. Less wealthy groups did not have access to this network, and thus communicated with each other differently.  The relationship between materiality and network is different depending on the group. Different materials and ideas circulated through different networks.

Morgan Wren

Journal Response #2

There is definitely a meaningful relationship between networks, writing, and materiality. Networks of people form together based on similarities between them and how they can benefit from one another. In Bazerman’s article, he presents the idea that, “The letter, in its directness of communication between two parties within a specific relationship in specific circumstances…seemed to provide a flexible medium out of which many functions, relationships, and institutional practices might develop — making new uses socially intelligible at the same time as allowing the form of the communication to develop in new directions.” Even though this line focuses on one medium (a letter), I think this line really exemplifies the idea of networks, writing, and materiality working together. It explains that from the letter, a network is formed based on writing and provides new functions and new development. Networks of people would not be sustainable without materiality or writing. In order to make connections with one another and stay in functioning network, writing is required. You have to be able to transfer your ideas to one another even if you are not in the same place. You may have to write letters, or emails, or take notes to keep the ideas consistent within your network. If these networks are not strengthened through the ideas of writing, the correct material will not be transferred across the network. For example, in a workplace, everyone is working together as part of a network, all looking to attribute to and attain the same goals. Within this network, writing is vital for almost anything to get accomplished. It doesn’t have to be only writing in print, but writing emails as well. These emails need to be sent around in order to accomplish different tasks and get everyone on the same page so that the correct material is being generated. It is easy to see how the three can relate when you look at a real world example. These three terms are also very intertwined when thinking about any controversial issues. Networks of people band together to fight for a certain cause. When advocating for something and getting people on board with your campaign, you will need writing and the correct material. Writing campaign emails, slogans, and signs is necessary to add people to your growing network. The material has to be consistent with your beliefs as well. These three terms are definitely very relatable and have a strong relationship.

Journal 2

In the excerpt from The Postal Age, Henkin states, “The large claims made in this chapter for the mid-century post as a modern communications network rest on such considerations of access and use.”  I think this sentence outlines the basis of where networks, materiality, and writing are all connected. A couple of paragraphs down he also says, “Sanger’s frustrations say nothing about the slowness of the mails as such (since the letter may have arrived at its official destination in the Boston post office with great dispatch); rather, they reflect a society in which postal correspondence took place without what later generations would regard as adequate supplemental circuits of information.” Material wont be written if there isn’t an adequate network for it to be sent through. Hekin also discusses economic standing and the price of letters being inhibiting many people from writing and communicating with one another. Personal letters were a luxury item, “Under these circumstances, most Americans tended to use the mail, if at all, for shorter distances or special occasions when the high price of sending a letter would mark the significance of the gesture.” The inability of the poorer class to send and receive letters is a direct example of how networks, writing, and materiality are related. These three things influence each other in a sort of domino effect.

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.

Journal Response 2 (Daniel Borjas)

Networks, writing, and materiality are each related to each other and they are going to influence what you write and how you write it.  For example in the Bazerman article, it was shown how during before the American Revolution, letters were sent out to rile up the people to want to rebel against Great Britain.  They wrote the letters in such a way that made the people upset at Great Britain, sent out the letters to those who they thought would respond well to it, and influenced the people to become more angry with Great Britain.  The people who wrote those letters knew who they wanted to send the letters to, so they used that information to write up the material that would influence the rebels before the American Revolution happened.  Another example that networks, writing, and materiality influences writing, is political ads.  A democrat knows their audience and knows what values they have and the same thing goes for republicans.  During a democratic debate, the democrats will say something along the lines of they want more gun control.  The democrats knows that their audience or network likes that idea.  So the material they present on the debate will try to influence other democrats to vote for them.  On the republican debate floor, they want less gun control and the republicans who are watching that probably like that idea because that is something they want.  The material that both sides are using are different, but they are both trying to influence voters.  So even though the material is different, the writing is not.  They are both using key phrases like "I can get this done" to influence voters to believe that they can actually make these things happen if they become president.  The material might change during the general election because they want to get as many votes as they can and the network for the general election is much larger, but the style of writing will be essentially the same. In the end, it will be a "this is why I should be president" kind of writing.  No matter what, your writing and material is going to be influenced by what your network and target audience is.  An ad for coke will not go and promote pepsi, a comedian will use humor to advertise their shows, a romance writer might continue writing romances because they already built an audience out of that, etc.

Journal #1

Throughout the reading Gitelman and Pingree state how all media was once considered “new media”. Writing in the 21^st century can be considered revolutionary because the tools people use to write are now more advanced; instead of writing on clay tablets or vellum people can now just type on a laptop or smartphone. The digital era and all the technology that is associated with it is the new medium that people use to write. Even though this technology is revolutionary it does not make writing a wholly different experience. When the typewriter came out it was a new technology and it was revolutionary; now a typewriter is archaic. The typewriter was a new medium of writing and it was considered new media. The same way people reacted over their new laptop is probably how people reacted to a typewriter. What is considered new media is perspective. Everything was new at one point or another and it was a revolutionary change when it came out.   

The new mediums in which writing is distributed is something that makes writing a different experience. People can write and get their message across in a blink of an eye in comparison to the past. Before people had to write letters and wait for weeks, even more, before their message was received. Now people can pick up their cell phone and send a text or email and its instantaneous. This is what makes writing in the 21^st century revolutionary. Every new invention or technology that aids in writing has made writing a different experience. Writing in the sense of telling stories and wanting to communicate is still the same now as it was in the past. What makes writing today revolutionary is the accessibility of it. Things like Facebook and Twitter make writing accessible to the masses. A person can go online and post something for hundreds and thousands of people to see. The 21^st century is filled with new media that aids in writing and it is revolutionary now. 50 years down the line there will be something even newer and the technologies kids in the early 2000s grew up with will seem old and outdated.