Her e is some background information about print culture:
Some things to keep in mind about the advent of print culture in the eighteenth century are that it had a variety of consequences for both the upper and lower classes. The upper class felt that the availability of publications bridged the gap between the two classes. They did not like that the lower class was now more knowledgeable about politics, literature and other worldly matters. They did not feel the lower class deserved such important knowledge without earning it. On the other hand, the lower classes reaped benefits of print culture, such as, more diverse subject matter, increased literacy, and a growing interest in the world, literature, and politics. Print culture not only had enormous effects on the upper and lower classes, but it gave way to growth in plagiarism, illustrations, legitimacy, and fame.
As you read all the material about print culture in the 18th century, what can you identify as the major concerns of the upper and lower classes regarding publications? The three pieces we gave you present an array of opinions both praising and rejecting the press. What were your opinions about print culture before you read these writings and how do you think mass productions affected society? The publications of the press gave way to numerous types of media such as illustrations in books, graphic/obscene literature, religious texts, and reviving past scholarly masterpieces. What can you identify that all three primary sources have in common with each other and what are they in objection over? As a society, we are overwhelmed with print media every day. Do you think this desensitizes or enhances our ability to analyze and interpret print culture from the eighteenth century? If you are having a difficult time thinking about these questions, then think about this question: Does the culture of “print culture” stem from the people reading one specific text, or the piece of literature that brings an audience together?
10 comments:
Prior to my exposure to this phenomenon, I originally thought of the print culture as some type of mechanism the reproduce scrolls or other old forms of text. I thought that people was in great awe of this ability to reproduce something that they celebrated it in a way that later C21 readers would classify their shared appreciated for one text as a culture.
Now, I think that "print culture" really refers to the actual piece of literature injunction with the audience reviews about it, which unifies both in a way that sparks an effective discussion of independent and universal opinions, constructive reviews, promotion for other readers/broader audience, etc.
To date it comes as no surprise that we are swamped with daily variations of media, which I believe (as stated in my prior blog) that we, particularly C21 consumers, readers, etc are desensitized from it all, because we were introduced to this culture in its abundance. Like America, the land of plenty, the print culture is simply regarded as something that remain the same for ages, so the assumption that no close attention needs to be paid on it comes into play. However, will that ungrateful mindset destroy a very promising contribution in years to come?
Before the readings for this week I had some idea about the large-scale societal changes of the printing press. I think one of the main things the readings helped me to appreciate was how many people were initially adverse to the printing press, and the struggles its proponents faced. For example, “The Blessings of a Free Press” talks about blood that was spilled for the printing press, and the way that that those involved with the process fought against “the State, and the Church, and the Devil.” This statement connects to the kind of opposition talked about in “The Pernicious Effects of the Art of Printing.” In this reading the author (satirically I assume) writes about the effect of printing on the lower class and the way printing caused people to challenge authorities like the Church. The author advises that society would be better off without mass printing, because it would restore a “natural” order and create peace again among “natural” hierarchical classes. Again, this reading reminded me that the printing press was not just about the proliferation of information, but it was also a tool which reorganized class structure.
In response to the second set of questions, I suppose I’m not entirely sure how the abundance of media today affects our ability to interpret print culture from the 18th century. I think texts like the ones for Wednesday help ground what people of the time were thinking about print culture. Readings like “The Blessings of a Free Press” show that there was a self-consciousness about printed texts which I don’t think exists today; in the 18th cent. readers viewed printed texts as a kind of luxury, and I think there was probably more of an appreciation for these publications. Today there is the almost opposite problem of trying to wade through the abundance of information we have available. I think people often wish there were less information, especially people involved in the task of doing research. I think, if nothing else, the readings helped me better appreciate this abundance, despite it being so cheap and easily accessible.
I've been thinking more and more lately about the idea of "desensitization" and the idea that we as consumers, particularly of images and text, are so constantly bombarded by streams of information that it all just becomes white noise in the background. What I have come to wonder is: am I really so desensitized? are we all desensitized? The word seems to be developing into one of those star English major terms like agency, autonomy, pedagogy, metafiction and gaze and I don't want to use it so much now without being certain of the idea.
I read a lot (and this is excluding non-print media like blogs, statuses and tweets): books, magazines, newspapers, nutrition labels, shampoo bottles, flyers, Snapple caps and fortunes. Maybe the last half are small pieces of information that I never remember or think critically about, but should I consider the fact that my fleeting relationship with those texts is a consequence of the fact that they exist in such a quantity that I am numb to them?
I'm thinking about all of this because of my initial thought that "print culture" signifies a relationship between reader and text and reader and other readers. This is where I stand right now, so maybe by tomorrow I have a different take to factor into my perception of print culture.
Before reading these texts I never even considered that people had a negative attitude toward the print culture. I just assumed that everyone would find it beneficial to society in terms of spreading knowledge and preserving literary works. However, as seen in The Pernicious Effects of the Art of Printing, people didn’t like that the printing press educated the poor because it made it difficult for the rich to keep them controlled: “had it not been for the infernal invention…the people happy in their ignorance, would never have had any chimerical notions of liberty, but obedient to their superiors, things would have glided smoothly and calmly on… ” (12). Another reason people criticized printing was because it allowed people, like Calvin and Luther, to vastly and quickly spread teachings against the Catholic church. People seemed to fear that the press would contribute to people losing their faith in the Catholic church. Another thing I found interesting in the criticism of print culture is how Johnson, in The Rambler, mentions how once a book is published it is “permanent and unintolerable,” and a person reading has to just accept it how it is and can’t make any changes (201). But, when it is unpublished he is able to use his imaginations and make as many alterations as he wants until he is pleased. This reminded me of how different our thought process is today than it was in the eighteenth century. Nowadays we want kids to read books instead of sitting idle in front of the TV so that they can exercise their imagination, but here Johnson is saying that a published book does not give you room to use your imagination since the words on the page are permanent.
In terms of whether or not we are desensitized in our ability to interpret print culture from the eighteenth century. I would have to say that the overwhelming amount of information we have today does not desensitize our ability to analyze and interpret information but rather enhances it. I think that because we have so much print media around we are better equipped to decipher what information is relevant enough or important enough for us to analyze.
When thinking of Print Culture I think about a huge step that was made in the world of literature and writing. It opened up a whole new world for people in terms of what was avaiable for them to read and educate themselves with. As far the readings in The Blessings Of A Free Press, is discussed a part of the Print Culture that I guess I never thought about but I found it interesting. For instance the reading states "No monion, we trust, howsoever audacious, / Will combat the Blessings that Spring for the Press". These words display a sense of power and strength behind the press. Making it known to everyone that no one can stop people from reading and learning what may now become available through Print Culture. The word "Blessing" is used in the quote and make me think that with the new Print Culture came relief. It provided something that people longed for and seemed to be a topic discussed and focused on for a while.
Prior to reading the assigned texts for today, I regarded print culture as a subject talked about in my high school history classes that I had never really put much thought into. As embarrassed as I am to admit that as an English major, I believe that my ignorance on the topic is due to the inundation of technology we experience on a daily basis. With the emphasis on the Internet in our undergraduate education, it seems that actual printed texts have fallen to the wayside and become forgotten. We are so accustomed to "google-ing" scholarly texts and using an online library database that we no longer find the need to check out actual books. From this, I think that our ability to interpret the print culture of the eighteenth century is neither desensitized or enhanced--it is best classified as difficult. Obviously our society is connected via different mediums that originated as print, but these original forms did not provide the instant gratification we experience today from news and social sources.
With all of this said, I do think that we can identify with the overwhelming connection the print culture movement created within and between communities. We are now able to be informed of news in other nations and societies that we would never be able to experience without the spread of a print-hungry culture.
The first time I was exposed to the idea of print culture, it was for an American History class that wanted to explore how and why so many people wanted to secede from England's rule. We began to explore how people gained a sense of nationalism, a sense of collective identity, a will to fight together (with complete strangers) in a common cause. We concluded that this was through the relatively new invention of print culture. You read a pamphlet or newspaper that people thousands of other people are reading and you identify with those people because you have common interests. This is what print culture has done and it still happens today, just on a more massive scale.
This concept of collective identity through print culture echoes Samuel Johnson's words in the Rambler where he says, "When a book is once in the hands of the public, it is considered as permanent and unalterable; and the reader, if he be free from personal prejudices, takes it up with no other intention than of pleasing or instructing himself; e, therefore, accommodates his mind to the author's design." Johnson focuses on the power of the author or the printer because people will take his opinion as their own. It gives a lot of power to the author when his words are read by many, many people.
When I was first introduced to Print Culture it was through my history classes. Not until this class has Print Culture been addressed in an English course. In my history class there was heavy emphasis on how Print Culture affected people's ability to unionize and stand against oppressive forces. As stated by Delayed Karma, we emphasized on the use of propaganda and creative a "collective identity" throughout a nation. Print Culture played a significant role in the shift of history. I can see how the upper class may be opposed to this because it causes those they are above to repress them. This may be a poor example, but it works for this subject. In an episode of "Family Guy", Peter receives printed press and jokes not to tell the serfs because they main gain some literacy (for reference:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxFjQzgkqHk). It goes to show that Print Culture creates a reasonable fear for the upper class and provides hope for the lower class.
I think our daily bombardment of print media isn't too overwhelming to the senses.Our understanding of print culture and it's affect during the C18 can be applied to our modern technology and current issues. For example, with the Protests in Egypt the government quickly cut off their internet sources. The internet can be viewed as a print media...simply digital. They did this in hopes to prevent further mobilization and to keep the rest of the ignorant to the happenings of the country. Print Culture, actual print or digital, creates an audience with an opinion which can be a major concern for upper class C18 and modern day politics.
I hadn't really encountered print culture before, or rather had never really given it much thought; it was just kind of a term that I heard in passing in several of my Early English lit classes. I do kind of agree that in a way we are a bit desensitized to how big of a deal print culture was during its time just because we are bombarded with so much media these days, that the introduction of print doesn't really seem like a big deal.
However, I think it was a good idea to include Johnson's Rambler article in today selection of reading, just because it highlights a shift in power that was able to take place due to printing. Individuals are given much more power in terms of being able to get their ideas out into the public and in being able to be exposed to new ideas, something that I think we take for granted today in terms of anyone being able to start a blog, or find virtually anything on the internet. I had never really thought of the print culture being a movement of power, but it really rings true in "Rambler No. 23".
Furthermore, it now makes sense why the wealthy would somewhat disagree with this movement forward, as they had the potential to lose power to people that considered "lesser" than themselves.
In contemporary society, print culture has taken a back seat to other forms of pervasive media, such as television, music, and most of all the internet(which is inherently an offshoot of print culture). In such a society, the majority of individuals no longer realize the importance of such easily accessible information; It is taken for granted, to say the least. And this fact is supported by introspection. It occurred to me that I've never once given much thought to "print culture," and the impact it has had on my life. I found it rather difficult empathizing with the authors we read for class today. While reading each text, I couldn't help but think, "are you really that narrow minded?" Even while considering the predispositions of each writer, I couldn't help but feel like they were all naive children. But in a way, they were. Today, the accessibility of information is, in some sense, equivalent to the understanding of gravity, or the heliocentric universe, or the earth being round. It is accepted and rarely disputed in western society. We have seen its effects and know it to be harmless. Every new idea is confronted with conservatives, those content with the current conditions and not willing to risk them. In "The Pernicious Effects the Are of Printing..." the author is simply a paranoid conservative, not willing to risk the status quo in which he is prosperous. Print culture's impact on society must have been extreme. It certainly cannot be a coincidence that it coincided with the plethora of revolutions and scientific discoveries of the time. Did the evolution of the printing process come first and then help bring about this confluence of revolutionary ideas, or did the ideas come first necessitating a method for their proliferation, and therby fueled the development of more efficient methods of printing. Probably, it was a combination of both factors, and by recalling the ingenuity and advancements of the 18th century, it can be conjectured that print culture had a huge impact on society and human advancement in the years that followed. With more informed minds, more ideas sprouted up and were backed by other informed minds. This began humanity's impetuous advancements in culture, technology, and beliefs, which is still occurring today.
Post a Comment